vote

SACRAMENTO — Every two years, elite athletes compete in the Olympics, biennial plants — like carrots and onions — produce seeds and people across America look on with consternation and mounting impatience as California counts its election ballots.

The prolonged tally has become as much a part of electioneering in the Golden State as wall-to-wall advertising, high-flown promises and overstuffed mailboxes groaning beneath the weight of endless campaign fliers.

The tabulation — which can last weeks past election day — is the product, in large part, of a commendable objective: Encouraging as many people as possible to vote.

California, which mails a ballot to every eligible voter, ranks near the top of states in the ease of its elections. That’s something to be celebrated. Voting is a way to help steer the direction of our state and nation and invest, as an active participant, in its future.

Yay, participatory democracy!

Unfortunately, the lag time between election day and the final results has led to all sorts of wild, unfounded claims, peddled mainly by Republicans seeking to curry favor with the sore-losing President Trump by parroting his conspiratorial gabbling.

“They hold the elections open for weeks after election day,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said recently, falsely suggesting that chicanery cost the GOP three House seats in California in 2024. “It looks on its face to be fraudulent.”

That’s a lot of, um, hooey.

There is no rampant cheating or election fraud in California. Period. Full stop.

Still, those sorts of phony statements have deeply diminished faith in our elections and our increasingly rickety democracy.

So — what if it were possible to preserve California’s friendly voting system while, at the same time, speeding up the tabulation of its many millions of ballots?

Kim Alexander believes it’s possible to do both.

“We need to stop explaining why it’s taking so long and start figuring out how to [produce election results] in a more satisfying way,” she said. “There are a lot of things that we could do better and do differently. It just takes some creative thinking and some will.”

Simply put, “The longer it takes to count ballots, the more voter confidence erodes.”

Alexander, head of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, has spent more than three decades working to make the state’s elections more efficient, more transparent and more accountable.

Her interest in politics and election mechanics came about while growing up in Culver City, where her father served as a councilman and mayor.

As a 7-year-old, stationed in the garage, it was Alexander’s job to track the returns in her dad’s first campaign, toting up the numbers at an election night party while her mom, posted in the kitchen, called the city clerk for updates. Even at that young age, Alexander learned the importance of a fair and efficient tabulation process.

Over the years, she watched as her father’s political career was stymied by a Democratic gerrymander, which blocked any hopes he had of being elected to Congress or the Legislature as a moderate Republican. She saw firsthand the influence of money in politics. (Her father told her of turning away donations that came with strings attached.) That helped turn her into a political reformer.

After working as a legislative staffer and serving a stint at Common Cause, the good-government lobbying group, Alexander took over the California Voter Foundation in 1994.

As a political noncombatant, Alexander won’t say how it feels, and whether these days she’s more or less optimistic, watching as reckless attacks on our elections come from inside the White House. “I like to describe myself as a realist with high goals,” is all she’d allow.

There are good reasons why it takes California so long to count its ballots.

First off, there are a lot of them; more than 16 million residents voted in the last presidential election, more than the population of all but 10 states. Voting by mail has exploded in popularity and it takes longer to count those ballots, as many don’t arrive until after election day. Also, there are a number of safeguards to prevent fraud and ensure an accurate count. “We’re checking all the signatures,” Alexander said. “We’re making sure nobody votes twice.”

Simply explaining those facts can help build trust, she said. However, that won’t speed up the state’s vote counting. Here, Alexander suggested, are some things that can:

— Increase funding for California’s 58 counties to expand equipment, staff and the space needed to process ballots. In recent years, the state has been asking local election officials to do more and more without reimbursing their costs.

— Educate voters and encourage them to turn their ballots in earlier. Along those lines, a system called “sign, scan and go” allows voters to return their mail ballots in person at a designated polling place. A pilot program in Placer County found that that shaved three to four days off processing time. The system could be implemented statewide.

— Better manage California’s voter database, doing so from the top down in Sacramento, rather than having counties oversee their data and feed it into the system. That bottom-up approach creates delays and a lag time in processing ballots.

— Create “ballot swap” days to speed delivery of out-of-county ballots where they belong, also saving time. (Under California law, voters can return their ballot anywhere in the state, but it must be routed to their home county to be tabulated. That process can now take more than a week.)

The problem, apart from perennial budget pressures, is that interest in election mechanics — a technical and arcane subject if ever there was one — is episodic and fleeting. It’s like worrying about a leaky roof when the temperature is 95 degrees outside and the sun is blazing.

But even without voters clamoring to address California’s slow-poke vote count, lawmakers should act.

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently rose to defend the state’s “safe and secure elections” against one of Trump’s many unwarranted attacks. If he wants to burnish his credentials for a 2028 presidential run — which Newsom very much does — one way would be to speed up delivery of its election results.

That way the rest of the country won’t be asking again in November: What the heck’s with California?

The Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America will not endorse a candidate for mayor.

After City Councilmember Nithya Raman decided at the last minute to run against her former ally Mayor Karen Bass, the group called a vote on whether to reopen the endorsement process, which it had closed without supporting a candidate.

DSA-LA backed Raman’s two successful city council runs, but she has been at odds with the group on some issues.

Also in the mix was another mayoral candidate, community organizer Rae Huang, whose positions align more closely with those of the group.

The two candidates were present for Saturday’s vote at Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Koreatown, though neither spoke.

The left-wing organization, which has about 5,000 members, is known for running strong ground game campaigns that include canvassing, door-knocking and phone banking. In addition to Raman, three other DSA-backed politicians now sit on the 15-member City Council.

Before the vote, DSA-LA members argued for and against reopening the endorsement process.

“The worst thing we can do right now for our movement is to say, ‘Well, actually, we’re not going to endorse Rae or Nithya. We’re going to do a third thing, which is to issue no endorsement.’ Who is the audience for this message?” said Leslie Chang, a co-chair of DSA-LA.

DSA-LA member Anna Gross argued that neither candidate was ideal, with Huang, who has little political experience, being a long shot and Raman hesitating to fully embrace the group.

“I do want a democratic socialist mayor, but as it stands, we have one candidate who is not going to win … and a candidate who will not openly identify as a democratic socialist,” Gross said.

Of the 488 members who voted Saturday, about 55% supported reopening the endorsement process, falling short of the required two-thirds majority.

If the process had been reopened, the group would have then voted on whether to endorse Raman, Huang or neither.

Huang’s earlier attempt to get the endorsement while the window was still open had failed because she did not obtain enough valid member signatures to qualify.

If the race is not decided in the June 2 primary, DSA-LA can still endorse a candidate in the runoff.

Besides Bass, Raman and Huang, the field of 14 candidates includes conservative reality TV star Spencer Pratt and tech entrepreneur Adam Miller.

Some members believed that a mayoral endorsement would take resources away from the slate of six local candidates they have already endorsed.

In city council races, DSA-LA is backing incumbents Hugo Soto-Martínez and Eunisses Hernandez; Faizah Malik, who is running against incumbent Traci Park on the Westside; and Estuardo Mazariegos for an open South L.A. seat.

The group is also backing Marissa Roy, who is challenging City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, and Rocío Rivas, an incumbent L.A. Unified school board member.

WASHINGTON — Republicans launched an unprecedented effort on Tuesday to hold the Senate floor and talk for days about a bill that they know won’t pass — an attempt to capture public attention on legislation requiring stricter voter registration rules as President Trump pressures Congress to act before November’s midterm elections.

The talkathon could last a week or longer, potentially through the weekend, as Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) tries to navigate Trump’s insistence on the issue and Democrats’ united opposition. Trump has urged Thune to scrap the legislative filibuster, which triggers a 60-vote threshold in the 100-member Senate, or find another workaround to pass the bill, but Thune has repeatedly said he doesn’t have the votes to do that.

Instead, Republicans intend to make a long, noisy show of support for the legislation, which would require Americans to prove they are U.S. citizens before they register to vote and to show identification at the polls, among other things. It’s a risky strategy, with no guarantee it will be enough for Trump, who has said he won’t sign other bills until the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act — also known as the SAVE America Act or the SAVE Act — is passed.

The floor debate is expected to eventually end with a failed vote. Republicans need 60 votes to advance the bill to a final vote, but they hold 53 seats, and all 45 Democrats and both independents, who caucus with the Democrats, oppose it.

The debate will “put Democrats on the record,” Thune said. He added that “how it ends remains to be seen.”

The Senate voted 51 to 48 Tuesday to begin the debate, with Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski the only Republican voting against moving forward on the bill.

In a social media post on Tuesday morning, Trump issued a warning to any Republican who doesn’t support the bill: “I WILL NEVER (EVER!) ENDORSE ANYONE WHO VOTES AGAINST ‘SAVE AMERICA!!!’”

Creating strict voter registration rules

Trump says, without evidence, that Democrats can only win in the midterms if they cheat and explicitly said Republicans need the SAVE America Act to win in November. The House passed the legislation earlier this year, but the Senate turned to other issues as it became evident that Republicans didn’t have the votes to pass it.

But Trump made clear he wasn’t satisfied and pushed the Senate to act. The Republican president has said he won’t sign other legislation, including a bipartisan housing bill backed by the White House, until the voting bill passes.

The bill contains a slew of provisions that Trump and his most loyal supporters have pushed as part of a broad effort to assert federal control over elections. It would require voters nationwide to provide proof of citizenship when they register and to show accepted voter identification when casting a ballot.

It would also create new penalties for election workers who register voters without proof of citizenship and require states to hand voter data over to the Department of Homeland Security so federal officials could screen for voters who are in the country illegally.

Trump also wants new provisions added to the bill, including a ban on most mail-in ballots.

“It’ll guarantee the midterms,” Trump said of the bill last week. “If you don’t get it, big trouble.”

Democratic opposition to the bill is firm

Democrats and many groups that champion voter access say there is little evidence of noncitizens voting and say the bill would disenfranchise millions of voters — including Republicans — by creating new burdens to prove citizenship.

It is already illegal to vote if you are not a U.S. citizen, but the bill would lay out strict new rules for paperwork that most people would have to present in person to register to vote. Opponents of the measure say those documents are not always readily available for many people and argue that it would kill voter registration efforts and unfairly penalize young people who are registering to vote for the first time, married women who change their last name and people who cannot travel to present their documents, among other groups.

While Republicans have focused on the bill’s new requirements to show identification when they show up to vote, Democrats say they are most concerned that the legislation would allow the federal government to take voters off the rolls.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that Democrats are not opposed to voter identification but “this is about purging the voter rolls in a massive way, so you never even get the chance to show a voter ID when you showed up to vote.”

Expect a show on the Senate floor

Trump, backed by Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, has pushed for a talking filibuster, which would force Democrats to talk for days or weeks to delay passage of the bill. But Thune and the larger GOP conference rejected that idea, arguing that it would end in failure after giving Democrats a stage and the opportunity to offer endless amendments, potentially adding their priorities to the bill.

Republicans are instead taking over the floor with their own speeches, proceeding under regular order but operating outside the normal time limits that are customary when debating legislation. Democrats are expected to answer with their own procedural hijinks, potentially forcing Republicans to come to the floor at all hours for votes, meaning they will need to stay close to the Senate for the duration.

Lee said last week that it’s unclear how it will all play out. He said he thinks Trump “understands that we need to put in an aggressive effort here.”

“And a lot of that,” he said, “is going to have to be determined in real time as we go about it.”

The extent of Trump’s satisfaction with the process, Lee said, “will depend on whether, in his view, we gave it everything we have.”

On Monday night, Lee was rallying voters in Trump’s base on X.

“Once we’re on this bill,” he wrote, “we must stay on it until it’s passed into law.”

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

March 16 (UPI) — The board of trustees for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., is set to attend a meeting Monday to determine whether to shutter the facility to carry out renovations that some critics worry could result in a structural overhaul akin to the White House’s East Wing.

The agenda for Monday’s meeting, obtained by The New York Times, indicates the board will vote on whether to begin renovations starting July 6. President Donald Trump announced last month that he wants to close the Kennedy Center for two years for construction amid artist cancellations and boycotts over his cultural agenda.

Trump said the decision to close the facility came after a yearlong review in consultation with contractors, musical experts, arts institutions, and advisers and consultants. He had initially considered a partial project that would permit shows to continue, but decided the best option for the venue was a temporary closure.

Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, an ex officio member of the board who sued to have access about the details of renovations, said she believes Trump wants to shutter the Kennedy Center in response to dozens of individuals and cultural organizations who have canceled appearances there in response to Trump trying to rename the center after himself. Beatty said the documents she received about the renovations were “inadequate.”

She said “the documents prove that there is absolutely no basis to shutter this precious living memorial and beloved institution,” she said in a statement. “It certainly looks like President Trump is shutting down the center because he is embarrassed that ticket sales are down and artists are fleeing since his illegal renaming.”

Beatty’s lawyers said she was concerned Trump might use his hand-selected board to push through wholesale changes at the Kennedy Center to design a facility more to his liking. In October, Trump had the East Wing of the White House demolished to make room for a $250 million ballroom.

In a post on Truth Social on Friday, Trump shared renderings of what he expected the so-called Trump-Kennedy Center to look like after the renovations. He said he’s not planning to rip out the facade.

“I’ll be using the steels. So we’re using the structure, we’re using some of the marble, and some of the marble comes down,” he said.

A Washington Post analysis of the renderings show very few changes to the exterior of the building, including altered cornices, updated roof and some windows, painted columns, new signage and landscaping changes.

The group Hands Off the Arts has held weekly protests outside the Kennedy Center over the changes. A participant, drag queen Tara Hoot, said “there’s no need for it to close.”

“The carpet’s brand new, right? They already have some things planned in the works to redo the Kennedy Center and parts of it, maintenance, so there’s no reason to close it,” Hoot said, according to WUSA-TV in Washington, D.C.

“There are jobs, lots of jobs, and people are going to lose their jobs. The economy is terrible right now. Why do we want more people to lose their jobs?”

ABOUT THE BEST THING to be said about this year’s special election campaign is that it will soon be over. No one will really win, except for the political consultants who will walk away with pockets full of cash for raising and spending more than $200 million of other people’s money, and no one will really lose, at least not literally, because there are no candidates on the statewide ballot. The safest prediction is that, on the day after the election, California politics will be just as dysfunctional as today.

So why are we having this election? And why should anyone vote? The immediate answer to the first question is clear enough: Because Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted it. The answer to the second question is that not voting would leave government to the special interests that finance these initiatives. The choices offered on the ballot require voter decisions, not a boycott.

All eight propositions on the ballot were put there by initiative petitions circulated by paid signature gatherers. The governor embraced four of them as elements of his reform of state government, including Proposition 76 to restrict state spending and Proposition 77 to take the job of drawing legislative and congressional districts away from the Legislature and give it to a panel of retired judges.

Schwarzenegger called a special election this year even though all the proposed reforms easily could have waited until the regular primary election in June. A majority of voters opposed this election, in part because of the estimated $50-million cost to the state and in part out of sheer exhaustion — six statewide elections, including primaries, in the last four years. No one is quite certain why Schwarzenegger insisted on this, although he claimed his reforms were too urgent to wait six months.

The irony is that, according to opinion polls, the more the governor campaigned for his measures, the less voters liked them. So if he called this election primarily to give his 2006 gubernatorial campaign a head start, he may be disappointed. One recent poll showed his approval rating at a meager 33%.

As for reforming state government, only Proposition 77 promises to bring about fundamental, beneficial change in how state government operates, ultimately resulting in a more moderate Legislature that is not deadlocked in partisan battle the way it is now. Propositions 74 and 75 offer some hope for modest improvements in education and Sacramento politics.

But it’s not just the governor’s misguided intentions that make this election objectionable. It has carried abuse of the ballot initiative to an unprecedented extreme (at least until the next election). All the measures were written by a variety of special interests and put on the ballot because those interests were able to spend the necessary money. If they all pass, the state’s overburdened Constitution will be weighed down by even more details about what state government can or cannot do.

This would all be unbearably depressing were it not for one fact: The people of California do want change in Sacramento.

That’s why they kicked out Gray Davis and elected Schwarzenegger in the 2003 special election. And that’s why, even as they question the wisdom of this special election, they remain supportive of the initiative process. The perfect initiative has yet to be written. (Although the two-sentence proposition proposed by San Francisco State professor Jules Tygiel in these pages last Sunday comes pretty close: “There shall be no further initiatives. All previous initiatives may be modified by a majority vote of the Legislature.”) But initiatives do succeed in forcing debate, if often clumsy or distorted, on important issues.

What Californians do not want is political gridlock. They want strong leaders who can get results without resorting to the ballot, much as Schwarzenegger did in working with the Legislature in 2004. It’s alarming that now Schwarzenegger is promising to produce even more ballot measures next year regardless of Tuesday’s outcome.

For all its faults, Tuesday’s election presents voters with choices. These choices may be unsatisfying. But by staying home, voters would only further exclude themselves from the governing process. See you at the polls on Tuesday.

TOPEKA, Kan. — A Kansas town known for its prisons is allowing a shuttered private prison to reopen and house immigrants detained for living in the U.S. illegally after a nearly yearlong legal fight amid a massive national push for new detention centers.

The City Commission in Leavenworth on Tuesday approved a permit to private prison operator CoreCivic. Members voted 4 to 1 to approve a three-year permit with conditions that set minimum staffing levels, ban the housing of minors and provide for a city oversight committee.

“If they don’t follow those guidelines, we can pull the permit,” Mayor Nancy Bauder said before the vote.

The 1,104-bed Midwest Regional Reception Center is 10 miles west of the Kansas City International Airport. CoreCivic, one of the nation’s largest private prison operators, said the center will generate $60 million annually once it’s fully open.

Leavenworth, Kan., sued CoreCivic after it tried to reopen the shuttered prison without city officials signing off on the deal.

The legal battle played out in state and federal courts, with the Department of Justice siding with CoreCivic in legal filings. The department argued that the city was engaged in an “aggressive and unlawful effort” to “interfere with federal immigration enforcement.”

It appears to be the only such legal battle nationally to delay a private prison from opening amid President Trump’s push for mass deportations. The city argued that requiring a permit would prevent future problems, while CoreCivic maintained that it didn’t need a permit and the process would take too long.

Leavenworth was an unlikely foe because the GOP-leaning city’s name alone evokes a shorthand for serving hard time. Prisons employ hundreds of workers locally at two military facilities, the nation’s first federal penitentiary, a Kansas correctional facility and a county jail, all within six miles of City Hall.

CoreCivic stopped housing pretrial detainees for the U.S. Marshals Service in its Leavenworth facility in 2021 after then-President Joe Biden called on the Justice Department to curb the use of private prisons. The American Civil Liberties Union and federal public defenders said inmates’ rights had been violated and there were stabbings, suicides and even one homicide.

The city’s lawsuit described detainees locked in showers as punishment and accused CoreCivic of impeding city police force investigations of sexual assaults and other violent crimes.

Almost four dozen people spoke in opposition to the permit before the commission’s vote. Bauder admonished the crowd several times for being too noisy, and police removed a protester who yelled vulgar comments.

“We, we the people of Leavenworth, are not fooled and we don’t care about their money,” David Benitez, a city resident, told the commission.

Some backers of the permit cited the potential boost to the local economy. Two CoreCivic employees argued for approval, and one of them, Charles Johnson, of Kansas City, Kan., said his job gave him purpose and allowed his family to get off of state assistance.

“The people I work alongside are caring, professional and committed to doing things the right way,” he said, his comments drawing boos from critics outside the commission’s meeting room.

City Commissioner Holly Pittman said because the city “stood firm,” it could negotiate conditions on the permit. She said denying it would risk a potentially expensive lawsuit.

“I will not gamble the financial stability of this city,” she said before voting yes. “Let me be clear: Approval does not mean endorsement.”

Hollingsworth and Hanna write for the Associated Press. Hollingsworth reported from Mission, Kan.