voter

SACRAMENTO — Californians have never been forced to choose between Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris, two homegrown political darlings, during any election.

But if the state’s registered Democrats picked now, Newsom would trounce Harris as their party’s next nominee for president and have the edge over other Democratic contenders, according to a poll released Friday by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Twenty-eight percent of the California Democrats who were surveyed selected the governor as their top choice in the 2028 presidential election. U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) followed with 14% and former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg received 11%. Harris came in fourth, with only 9% of voters in her own state naming her as their preferred Democratic nominee.

“It’s quite a positive result for Newsom,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Berkeley IGS Poll. “He’s separated himself from the rest of the pack, and especially when you compare him to the other major Californian in the considerations, he’s three times as much as Kamala. That’s quite impressive.”

The political careers of the governor and former vice president have orbited each other but never crossed since Newsom was sworn in as San Francisco’s mayor and Harris as the city’s district attorney on the same day in 2004. Now the two Bay Area natives are both flirting with the 2028 presidential contest as they travel the country promoting their life stories on respective book tours.

It’s early days and neither politician has said they will or won’t launch official campaigns for the Oval Office. The possibility remains that Californians might finally see a matchup that the two Democrats have long avoided.

Newsom set his sights on the governor’s office in 2010 before dropping out and running for lieutenant governor, a largely powerless post in which he served in the shadow of Gov. Jerry Brown for eight years. Harris won election that year as California attorney general.

Harris’ and Newsom’s paths diverged again when she chose to run for U.S. Senate in a 2016 contest to replace former Sen. Barbara Boxer and he announced his candidacy for governor in the 2018 election.

When Harris jumped into the 2020 and 2024 races for the White House, Newsom said he wouldn’t run against her. He’s discredited the idea that the two politicians have some kind of a sibling rivalry and noted that their trajectories ran adjacent and never collided.

Newsom was asked again last month whether he would vie against Harris in a presidential contest. The governor said he hasn’t “gotten in the way of her ambition ever,” and he doesn’t imagine that he would in the future. His answer changed when he was pressed to respond specifically to the potential for 2028.

“That’s fate. I don’t, I don’t know,” Newsom said to CNN’s Dana Bash, throwing up his hands. “You know, you can only control what you can control.”

Newsom and Harris had greater support from Black and Latino voters than white and Asian American Democrats in the new poll. She performed well among Democrats younger than 30 compared with other age groups, while Newsom fared better with older Democrats. More women selected Newsom as their first or second choice than they did Harris.

Neither California heavyweight performed particularly great among Democratic voters in the Bay Area, which DiCamillo called a curious finding for two politicians from the region. Support was higher for Harris and Newsom in almost every other region of the state.

DiCamillo believes the presence of Ocasio-Cortez on the list probably pulled some support from Harris. California voters in other recent polls were also sour on a third presidential run by Harris.

An Institute of Governmental Studies poll in August gauged interest in the potential candidacy of Newsom and Harris. About 45% of the state’s registered voters said they were enthusiastic about Newsom running, compared with 36% for Harris. Almost two-third of voters in that survey, and half of Democrats, said Harris should not run for president again.

Although Newsom clearly beat the field of candidates in the most recent poll, DiCamillo said receiving support from a little more than a quarter of those surveyed in his own backyard isn’t exactly wonderful. The governor’s approval rating is also down.

The poll found that 48% of California registered voters say they approve of the job Newsom is doing, with the same share disapproving of his performance. That marks a drop from 51% approval the last time DiCamillo asked in August. Disapproval also climbed, by 5 percentage points.

Voters held positive opinions about Newsom’s participation in international conferences, which was described in the poll as the governor “offering an alternative to the policies being promoted by President Trump on issues like climate change and the economy.” The poll found 59% of statewide registered voters approve and 37% disapprove.

Cristina G. Mora, co-director of the poll, said the results suggest Newsom’s more aggressive stance with Trump seems to resonate in his own state.

“Though Californians may hold mixed views on his gubernatorial tenure, they overwhelmingly see him as the strongest counter to Trump and MAGA candidates,” Mora said. “Harris’s earlier presidential defeat, compounded by persistent voter biases against women and candidates of color, may also be shaping these early numbers.”

The Berkeley IGS/Times poll surveyed 5,019 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 14. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

SACRAMENTO — A new poll shows California voters are sharply divided over two brewing statewide ballot measures stirring up the nation’s partisan and economic divides: a one-time tax on billionaires to pay for mostly healthcare and a voter ID mandate that includes citizenship verification.

The survey conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed 52% of registered voters supported the billionaire’s tax, while 33% said they opposed it. Fifteen percent were undecided.

Support for the voter ID measure was more evenly split, with 44% of voters in support, 45% opposed and the remainder undecided.

The pair of statewide proposals, which have yet to qualify for California’s November ballot, emanated from opposite sides of California’s political spectrum. Organized labor and progressives are pushing hard for a new wealth tax in response to Republican cuts to federal healthcare programs, and the GOP-led call for additional voter restrictions comes in the wake of President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

Poll director Mark DiCamillo said he “was a little surprised” by the results given how much attention each measure has already received.

“Just from reading the press accounts of these initiatives, I thought they would both be well ahead. There’s been a lot of discussion about them and advocates seem to be very confident in their chances of passage, but the polls seem to indicate otherwise,” he said.

The divisions over each measure fell largely along partisan and ideological lines.

On the billionaire’s tax initiative, 72% of Democratic voters said they would support the measure if the election were held today — and the same percentage of Republicans oppose it. A slim majority — 51% — of voters who are unaffiliated or registered with another party support the wealth tax, while 30% said they oppose it, with the remainder undecided.

Republican voters overwhelmingly support the voter ID initiative, with 91% saying they would vote for it. More than two-thirds of Democratic voters, 68%, said they would oppose the measure. No party preference voters appeared evenly split.

Neither ballot measure has officially qualified for the November ballot thus far, though proponents of the voter ID measure said this month that they turned in 1.3 million voter signatures to elections officials, well above the 875,000 required to qualify. Proponents of the new tax on billionaires have until June 24 to submit signatures to elections officials.

The billionaire tax has generated national news coverage and widespread debate over whether it would benefit low-income Californians or end up hurting the state’s tax base as billionaires move out of the state to avoid paying it.

The proposal is backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which represents 120,000 workers in California. Union leaders say that the tax would raise $100 billion to backfill steep cuts to federal healthcare programs under a sweeping tax and spending bill approved by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed in the summer by Trump.

The measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of California residents who are worth $1 billion or more, with options to pay it over multiple years.

According to SEIU-UHW, the new tax would apply to around 200 people in the state, though several wealthy tech leaders have made moves to change their residences and avoid paying the tax should it pass. In recent months, Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and others have bought up lavish beachfront estates and new commercial office spaces in South Florida.

Some of those billionaires are also ponying up to defeat the measure. Brin, who according to Forbes is the world’s third-richest person, has contributed $45 million to a new ballot measure committee called Building a Better California, which is pushing an alternative statewide ballot measure that could scrap the billionaire’s tax.

Brandon Castillo, a veteran ballot measure campaign strategist who is not working on either of the two measures, said even though it’s currently polling above 50%, the billionaire’s tax is starting out “in a really shaky position.”

“This is not a very strong place to start,” he said. “That’s not to say they can’t keep this thing over 50%, but when you’re starting just barely above 50% and you have a tsunami of money and a huge campaign against you, it’s really hard to keep yourself at that level.”

Though previous public opinion polls at the state and national levels have shown broad support for requiring proof of citizenship to vote in elections, even among Democrats, the new Berkeley poll showed liberal voters are skeptical of the measure.

Proponents of voter ID contend that such laws prevent election fraud and, along with proof of citizenship mandates, prevent noncitizens from voting. Opponents say ID requirements threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans who do not have the documentation readily available, and that the restrictions are unnecessary given that voting by noncitizens is rare and already outlawed in the U.S.

Under current law, Californians are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail. They are required to provide identification when registering to vote, and must swear under penalty of perjury, a felony, that they are eligible to vote and a U.S. citizen.

The poll showed that slim majorities of predominantly Spanish-speaking voters, voters who were born in another country and first-generation immigrants support the voter ID measure. A plurality of Latino voters also favor it, with 44% in support and 41% opposed.

But DiCamillo cautioned against reading too much into those numbers, noting that awareness of the measure is still relatively low.

“I’ve always seen in my history of measuring Latino voters’ support that they are relatively late deciders on most ballot measures,” he said. “How they break will be critical. I would say we’ll have to look at how they feel when we do our final preelection poll.”

Voter ID laws are also a top priority of Trump, who has pressured the Senate into taking up the SAVE Act, which would impose nationwide requirements for proof of citizenship to vote and already has passed the House of Representatives.

Castillo said Trump’s support could sway Democratic and liberal-leaning independents to vote against the measure.

Both DiCamillo and Castillo noted that with the November election still seven months away, voters are not paying much attention and those on either side of each ballot measure have not launched major campaigns yet.

“I suspect by the time election day comes around, these awareness numbers on the billionaire’s tax certainly are going to be much higher,” Castillo said. “You’re going to see 80-90% of voters familiar with it, just because they’re going to be inundated with advertising and earned media between now and November.”

The Berkeley IGS/Times poll surveyed 5,019 registered California voters online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 14. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

For months, the senior U.S. senator from Montana pondered his political future.

Or so he said.

Wrapping up his second term and facing a glide path to a third, Steve Daines unexpectedly opted this month against seeking reelection, saying in an aw-shucksy video he planned to spend more time back home in Montana and enjoy more cherished moments with his seven grandkids.

Notably, after long “wrestling with this decision,” Daines announced his intent a scant two minutes after the deadline passed for candidates to put their names on the ballot. March 4 at 5:02 p.m local time, to be precise.

More notable still, Daines’ preferred successor, Republican former U.S. Atty. Kurt Alme, jumped into the race at 4:52 p.m. that very same day.

There are relay runners who might learn a thing or two from their timing and coordination.

As part of the seamless handoff, Alme was swiftly endorsed by President Trump, Montana’s Republican governor, Greg Gianforte, and its other Republican senator, Tim Sheehy, for all intents settling the GOP contest and, quite likely, choosing the state’s next member of the U.S. Senate.

Never mind what voters might have wished, or other prospective candidates might have had in mind.

“There are a lot of Republicans in the state, folks with political ambitions, who are extremely peeved right now,” said Kal Munis, a Montana native and political science professor at Auburn University, who closely tracks politics in his home state.

Moreover, Munis said, with enough notice a heavy-hitting Democrat might have entered the contest, instead of the lowly bunch now running hopeless campaigns.

Montana, which has a rich Democratic history, has become a solidly Republican state, though the makeover took some time to complete.

As recently as 2008, Barack Obama made a serious run there, losing to John McCain by less than 3 percentage points. Montana had a Democratic governor until Gianforte was elected in 2020 and a Democratic U.S. senator until Jon Tester was defeated in 2024.

Still, while Daines’ seat hardly appeared at great risk for the GOP, a fight for the party’s nomination might have been a costly distraction, diverting money and attention that could go elsewhere as Republican prospects for the midterm election grow increasingly dim. (An unpopular war and shaky economy that’s been knee-capped by a sudden spike in oil prices will do that.)

Of all people, Daines certainly appreciates the bigger political picture, having led Republicans’ Senate campaign committee during the 2024 cycle. So he and his allies short-circuited the election process by laying hands on Alme, who stepped down as U.S. attorney to sidle into the Senate.

Seth Bodnar was among those who quite rightly criticized Daines for, as Bodnar put it, having “so little respect for Montana Republicans that he withdrew at the last minute to coronate his handpicked successor instead of giving them a voice at the ballot box.”

It just goes to show, Bodnar suggested, “the disgusting arrogance of Washington politicians and their party bosses who trade power back and forth like candy.”

Bodnar, the former president of the University of Montana, is running for Senate as an independent, conspicuously steering clear of the toxic Democratic brand. There is speculation the high-handed behavior of Daines, Trump and other Republicans might be enough to give Bodnar’s steep-odds candidacy a decent shot in November.

Munis, for one, is doubtful.

“There are a number of activist types who are deeply angered by this,” he said. “But when it comes to tallying votes in an election, that’s just a drop in the bucket.”

Unfortunately, Daines’ scheming, stick-it-to-the-voters approach isn’t just a Montana Republican thing.

Democratic Rep. Chuy Garcia of Illinois announced in the fall that he would not seek a fifth term this year. The last-second move — which came after Garcia had earlier filed paperwork to run for reelection — made it so his chief of staff and preferred successor, Patty Garcia (no relation), was the only major Democrat to appear on the ballot, virtually guaranteeing her election in November.

The cynical maneuver so disgusted Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a maverick Democrat from rural Washington state, that she defied party leaders and introduced a resolution rebuking Garcia.

His actions were “beneath the dignity of his office and incompatible with the spirit of the Constitution,” said Gluesenkamp Perez, who was jeered and booed by fellow Democrats during the floor debate for having the temerity — heavens to Betsy! — to put principle above knee-jerk partisanship. The measure passed the House, 236 to 183, with only 22 Democrats joining Gluesenkamp Perez in support.

In California, the law prevents incumbents from pulling off the kind of underhanded stunt that Garcia and Daines managed. That’s because the filing deadline is automatically extended for an extra five days whenever a sitting lawmaker opts against seeking another term.

So, for instance, when Rep. Darrell Issa suddenly announced this month he would not run for reelection, he endorsed his favored replacement, San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond, but couldn’t grease the process to see to it that Desmond takes his place.

Legislators in other states should pass a law like the one in California to prevent the undemocratic shenanigans that in effect neutered voters in Montana and the Chicago area.

That is, if they truly believe elections matter and voters should have a choice and not stand by powerless as their government representatives are anointed from on high.

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.

Former L.A. mayor and current candidate for governor Antonio Villaraigosa wants voters to know that he navigated billion-dollar budgets, cracked down on violent crime and championed the expansion of bus and rail lines.

The onetime state Assembly speaker argues he’s the only Democratic candidate with the experience to do the complicated job of running California.

But Villaraigosa left City Hall in 2013 — eons ago in the world of politics. President Obama was still in office, singer Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” was atop the charts and Apple Watches weren’t yet a thing.

Because of his distance from elected office, combined with a decent but overshadowed fundraising effort, Villaraigosa lacks a high-profile platform to attract attention in today’s fractured media universe, an essential ingredient he needs to remind voters about his experience and accomplishments as mayor and a state lawmaker.

Antonio Villaraigosa gets his photo taken with students from Hazeltine Avenue Elementary School while visiting Placita Olvera in 2013.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

Recent polls show Villaraigosa, 73, wallowing at the bottom of the field, though none of the major Democratic candidates have an overwhelming edge.

Villaraigosa also ran for governor in 2018, coming in third in the primary election behind Democratic rival Gavin Newsom, who went on to win and is now serving his second term, and little-known Republican businessman John Cox.

Political strategist Mike Madrid, who worked for Villaraigosa on that campaign, said the former mayor’s absence from politics in recent years is a major liability in this race.

“He’s a dogged, determined candidate,” Madrid said. “But there are pretty stiff headwinds.”

Villaraigosa got a boost last week when the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California pledged $1 million to an outside committee supporting him.

His allies argue voters aren’t paying attention to the governor’s race because eyes are on President Trump, immigration raids and the Iran war.

But the new funding is a pittance compared to some of his rivals. Billionaire Tom Steyer is tapping tens of millions of his own money to pump out ads. Tech companies and billionaire Rick Caruso are supporting Matt Mahan, the mayor of San José, with millions.

Another contender, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), has the power of incumbency. Swalwell launched his campaign on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and is a regular on cable news shows, while former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, who is also running, recently served in Congress and campaigned for the U.S. Senate two years ago.

With the June primary looming, Villaraigosa’s campaign risks sputtering out.

Angeleno Celine Mares holds a copy of Newsweek featuring newly elected Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa as he is sworn into office on the steps of City Hall July 1, 2005.

(David McNew / Getty Images)

Leaving a Compton church earlier this month, he reacted to Mahan’s support from technology companies, and the billionaire money in the race.

“When you have overwhelming sums of money influencing elections, there’s a great deal of concern for those of us who care about our democracy,” said Villaraigosa. “As much as they say it’s about free speech, it actually drowns out speech.”

(During his 2018 bid for governor, though, Villaraigosa was a major beneficiary of Californians using their wealth to wield political influence. Charter school backers, including Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings and philanthropist Eli Broad, spent around $23 million on efforts to boost his campaign. )

Earlier in the morning, he rallied runners at a 10K road race in L.A.’s Chinatown, lighting firecrackers, posing for photos and looking as energetic as when he was mayor and would dart into the street to personally fill potholes.

Villaraigosa flitted around the racers’ VIP tent, spotted a bowl of fortune cookies and made a beeline. “You have an active mind and a keen imagination,” he read aloud.

“Antonio V.!” a middle-aged man called out as the former mayor passed.

Minutes later, Villaraigosa swapped his black and white Veja sneakers and jeans for dress shoes and a suit for the church service in Compton, at which an overwhelmingly Black audience gave him a warm reception.

Building a coalition of Black and Latino voters helped him win the 2005 L.A. mayor’s race in a dramatic upset of then-Mayor Jim Hahn, and brought wide attention to the one-time high school dropout, who was raised by a single mother on Los Angeles’ eastside.

Newsweek magazine featured Villaraigosa on its cover with the headline, “Latino Power: L.A.’s New Mayor and How Hispanics will change American Politics.”

But national acclaim can be fleeting. Today, voters aren’t as interested in identity-based politics, said Fernando Guerra, a professor of political science at Loyola Marymount University who has known Villaraigosa for decades.

Guerra said Villaraigosa is struggling to differentiate himself in the race because his pitch to voters is not unlike the moderate path taken by Mahan. Another contender, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, overlaps with Villaraigosa when it comes to biographical details: Both are from the L.A. area, Latino and relatively close in age.

“What’s made it so difficult is that [Villaraigosa said], ‘Here’s my path,’” said Guerra. “Well, guess what, there are one to two more candidates who are also on that path.”

Strategist Madrid questioned whether voters even want to hear about a candidate’s experience at a time when anti-Trump messages rally Californians. “They want a fighter,” he said.

Since leaving the mayor’s office, Villaraigosa has enjoyed success in the lucrative private sector. He purchased a $3.3 million home in the L.A. neighborhood of Beverly Hills Post Office in 2020. . A recent campaign filing shows he’s spent the last few years advising companies including the health company AltaMed, financial lender Change Company and crypto currency exchange Coinbase Global.

Then mayor Antonio Villaraigosa holds a news conference at the Department of Water and Power on Hope Street July 22, 2005, urging all of Los Angeles to conserve energy in an effort to ensure Southern California avoids blackouts.

(Ken Hively / Los Angeles Times)

He also worked for a few years for consulting firm Actum and briefly advised the Newsom administration on infrastructure projects.

“It’s not that I didn’t like the public sector,” said Villaraigosa, explaining his decision to run again. As he talked about his desire to serve, he cast a gauzy image of the aughts in Los Angeles, taking credit for the downtown resurgence, skyline full of construction cranes and fewer homeless people on the streets during that period.

“Most people look back on those years and say they were some of the best years we’ve had in the last 25 — at least,” said Villaraigosa.

Stuart Waldman, president of the business group Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., argues Villaraigosa’s experience in the private sector and distance from elected office is a good thing.

“Look at what the economy was like, look at what the city was like” under Villaraigosa, said Waldman. “That’s what he’s going to be judged on.”

Villaraigosa started his career working for labor and civil rights groups before entering politics. Elected to the state Assembly in 1994, he pushed legislation that banned assault weapons and created healthcare coverage for children. His outgoing personality established him as a coveted fundraiser for Democrats in Sacramento and paved the way for him to be chosen as Assembly speaker.

As L.A. mayor, he brought down gang crime through a program that used former gang members to broker truces. Voters backed his ballot measure to expand L.A.’s transit system through new sales tax money in the middle of the Great Recession. He drove down pension costs after a bruising battle with city unions. At the same time, he established himself as a national leader on climate issues and education.

His reputation took a hit after an affair with a television reporter led to the breakup of his marriage.

The media scene that covered Villaraigosa back then is vastly diminished, with young people now getting news from TikTok videos, message boards or Instagram posts.

Weighing in on recent TV news layoffs in Los Angeles, Villaraigosa called himself “lucky” that there were plenty of newspaper and television reporters covering him as mayor, recalling that he’d get a dozen cameras to his press conferences.

Asked to compare his 2018 campaign for governor with this one, he said, “I didn’t have to reintroduce myself last time in quite the way I’ve had to this time.”

Villaraigosa spent a significant time in Mexico in recent years to see his now ex-wife Patricia Govea, a clothing designer. “She was in Mexico 80% of the time, the last six years. So I` went to Mexico a lot.” The pair’s divorce was finalized last year.

During a debate in front of Jewish voters on L.A.’s westside last month, Villaraigosa appeared to seize on the fact that he was the sole Angeleno on the stage, introducing himself by saying, “It’s good to be home.”

He told the crowd about his work as president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and criticized UCLA — his alma matter — for its handling of incidents targeting Jewish students on its campus.

It remains to be seen if he’ll have a hometown advantage. In the 2018 race for governor, Newsom won more votes than Villaraigosa in Los Angeles County. While Villaraigosa did well in Latino communities in central L.A. and on the Eastside, Newsom captured more votes in wealthier, whiter areas.

But at the Compton church, a security guard approached Villaraigosa and told him she’d worked on his 2005 campaign, while others promised to vote for him.

“I know he has a track record,” said Valerie Bland, a 63-year-old former port worker from Long Beach, as she watched Villaraigosa work the pews. “I haven’t even looked at anyone else.”

Former Assembly speaker Fabian Núñez, a longtime friend of Villaraigosa and managing partner at Actum, hopes voters dig into Villaraigosa’s record.

“We have short-term memories in this country,” said Núñez.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Joshua Bogdan was born and raised in the United States. The only time the New Hampshire resident has left the country was for a day and a half in seventh grade, when he went to Canada to see Niagara Falls.

Even so, that did not mean proving his U.S. citizenship in last fall’s local elections was easy.

The 31-year-old arrived at his voting place in Portsmouth and handed the poll worker his driver’s license, just as he had done in other towns when arriving to vote. She said that would no longer do.

The poll worker said that under the state’s new proof-of-citizenship law, which took effect for the first time during town elections in 2025, Bogdan would need a passport or his birth certificate because he had moved and needed to re-register at his new address. A scramble ensued, turning the voting process that he had always found fun and invigorating into a nerve-racking game of beat the clock.

“I didn’t know that anything had officially changed walking in there,” he said. “And then being told that I had to provide a passport that I’ve never had or a birth certificate that’s usually tucked away somewhere safe just to cast my vote — which I’ve done before — it was frustrating.”

Noncitizen voting is rare

Bogdan’s experience in New Hampshire is a glimpse into the future for potentially millions of voters across the country. That is if Republican voting legislation being pushed aggressively by President Trump passes Congress and a “show your papers” law is put in place in time for the November midterm elections.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE America Act, cleared the House last month on a mostly party-line basis. Republicans say it would improve election integrity. Trump has called its safeguards common sense. Democrats and voting rights advocates call it a clear act of voter suppression. The bill is scheduled to come up for debate and voting in the Senate next week.

Republican messaging has mostly highlighted a less divisive provision in the bill that would require voters to show a photo ID. But the mandate for people to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections is likely to have the most wide-ranging consequences. Noncitizens already are prohibited from voting in federal elections, and it is not allowed by any state. Cases where it occurs are rare and harshly punished.

Obtaining the necessary documents under the SAVE Act is not as easy as it might sound. A similar effort was tried in Kansas a decade ago and turned into a debacle that eventually was blocked by the courts after more than 30,000 eligible citizens were prevented from registering.

Qualifying documents, with caveats

Rebekah Caruthers, president and chief executive at the Fair Elections Center, said the legislation’s strict documentation requirements could move the U.S. “in the opposite direction” of representative democracy.

“If this bill passes, it would deny millions of eligible Americans their fundamental freedom to vote,” she said in an email. “This includes millions of people who make up your communities, including married women, people of color and voters who live in rural areas.”

The list of qualifying documents in the SAVE Act for proving citizenship appears long, but many of them come with qualifiers.

Under the bill, a Real ID-compliant driver’s license would have to indicate that “the applicant is a citizen,” but not all do. Only five states — Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington — offer the type of enhanced Real IDs that explicitly indicate U.S. citizenship.

Standard driver’s licenses, generally available to both citizens and noncitizens, often do not include a citizenship indicator. Some states, including Ohio, have recently added them.

The stipulations continue, buried in the fine print.

While military ID cards are listed as qualifying documents under the act, they will not suffice on their own. The bill says a military ID must be accompanied by a military “record of service” that indicates the person’s birthplace was in the U.S.

A DD214, the current standard-issue certificate of release or discharge for all military service branches, does not fulfill that requirement. According to the Pentagon, that document lists only where someone lived at points of entry and discharge and a person’s current home of record. It does not list where someone was born.

Passport requires time and money

For most provisions, the SAVE Act contains no phase-in period that would give voters and local election offices time to adjust. If passed by Congress and signed by Trump, its documentary proof-of-citizenship mandate would apply immediately, meaning it would be in place for this year’s midterm elections.

That could lead to a rush to obtain documents by those who want to register or need to reregister. A 2025 University of Maryland study estimates that 21.3 million Americans who are eligible to vote do not possess or have easy access to documents to prove their citizenship, including nearly 10% of Democrats, 7% of Republicans and 14% of people unaffiliated with either major party.

A passport would most effectively meet the requirement, but only about half of American adults have one, according to the State Department. The SAVE Act requires the passport to be current; an expired one does not count.

Obtaining a passport in time for a looming voter registration deadline is another potential hurdle.

Workers who process passports had layoffs at the State Department reversed, but just last month the department forbid passport processing at certain public libraries that had long helped relieve pressure at the department. Government libraries, post offices, county clerks and others still provide the service.

It takes four weeks to six weeks to get a passport, according to the department’s website, excluding mailing time. A new passport costs $165 for adults and renewals cost $130, while the photo costs $10 or $20 more. The turnaround time can be sped up to two weeks or three weeks for an additional $60 — and for even faster processing, add $22 more. The fully expedited process for a new passport would cost at least $257, a significant burden for many voters.

Birth and marriage certificates

A birth certificate may be a quicker and cheaper choice for most people, but there are twists.

The SAVE Act requires a certified birth certificate issued by a state, local government or tribal government. What does not appear to qualify is the certificate signed by the doctor that many new parents are given in the hospital when their child is born. It provides information similar to a certified birth certificate, but would not meet the letter of the federal legislation.

Like passports, birth certificates can sometimes take weeks to obtain. Those who live near their birthplaces can visit the local vital statistics office, but staffing shortages and escalating demand for Real IDs have caused significant backlogs in some states. In New York, the waiting period for certified copies is four months, the state said. Average processing times for online certificate requests vary widely by state, from as few as three days to 12 weeks or longer.

People whose birth certificates don’t match their current IDs — mostly women who changed their names when they married — would probably need additional documentation to register to vote under the bill. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey found about 80% of women in opposite-sex marriages in the U.S. take their husband’s last name.

Notably, the SAVE Act does not provide any money to help states and local governments implement the changes or promote them to voters.

For Bogdan, that was part of the problem when New Hampshire’s proof-of-citizenship law took effect. People who have voted elsewhere in the state are not required to show proof of citizenship in their new towns if poll workers confirm their registration history. But Bogdan said workers at his polling place did not seem to know that or try to look up the information.

He eventually was able to cast his ballot because, by luck, he had recently retrieved his birth certificate from his parents’ house more than an hour away so he could apply for a Real ID. But he said government notices to voters would help prevent possible disenfranchisement.

“Young voters like myself don’t always carry around our birth certificate, Social Security card, all that important stuff, because it’s not used ever or very often,” he said. “And so all those young kids who are going to go out and try and vote will be held back from that.”

Smyth writes for the Associated Press.

Fans of the musical “Hamilton” know three things about the nation’s first Treasury secretary because of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s brilliance. First, that Alexander Hamilton cheated on his wife, Eliza. Second, he was killed by the vice president, Aaron Burr. Third, and most importantly, he was considered a highly principled man. And when it came to the topic of nationalizing elections, do you know how this Revolutionary War vet and founding father characterized doing so?

A threat.

Referring to corruptible public officials, Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers: No 59: “With so effectual a weapon in their hands as the exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, a combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States, where the temptation will always be the strongest, might accomplish the destruction of the Union, by seizing the opportunity of some casual dissatisfaction among the people to discontinue the choice.”

Hamilton’s prescient views became the framework for the Election Clause in the Constitution. And since returning to the White House, President Trump has been searching for ways to usurp it. Last month he made calls to nationalize elections. This month he’s at it again.

He’s also pushing Congress to pass his so-called SAVE Act, which would require voters to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote. It sounds innocuous until you realize a driver’s license isn’t good enough; a passport would often be required. But half the country doesn’t have a passport, and it costs roughly $200 and a few weeks to get one. The logistical burden is unreasonable and cruel: Consider that this year, during primary season, we’ve already witnessed natural disaster — such as the tornadoes that recently ripped through the Midwest or the fires in Texas — upend entire communities. Many people would not have been able to vote, simply because they had been separated from their papers during the disaster.

The financial obstacles that would be created by the SAVE Act are at least as onerous: Why would Congress choose to financially burden voters — with what is essentially an unlawful poll tax — at a time when the unemployment rate and gas prices are up and the approval rating for nearly everyone in office is down? There are a couple of reasons. One is that the party controlling Congress hopes to suppress voting in order to defy the will of the American majority and cling to power.

Another reason lawmakers support this terrible bill is simply that Trump wants it. Some Republicans in office are so afraid of angering a vengeful president that they would rather entertain his authoritarian tendencies than go through the fire of his opposition during a primary.

For politicians such as Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who this week changed his long-held position on the filibuster in order to push the SAVE Act, it’s simply about political survival. He needs the president’s endorsement heading into the runoff for his Senate seat.

Trump has called the election overhaul bill his top priority — not the war he started with Iran, not returning the billions collected from illegal tariffs, not justice for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. Before there was a Constitution, there was a warning, written by Hamilton and other founders, whose concerns about nationalized elections are well documented and have proved to be well founded.

You would think a nation in the midst of beating its proverbial chest about our 250th birthday would take more heed from the country’s founders. But nope: This week Florida state lawmakers, in an attempt to appease their state’s most powerful resident, passed an election overhaul law that mirrors the federal SAVE Act. More red states are likely to follow, not because a national wave of voter fraud has been unearthed by authorities, but because the authorities want to stay in the good graces of someone who has yet to prove any widespread fraud other than his own.

The party that famously railed against “the bridge to nowhere” is now offering bills that solve nonexistent problems. Or in some cases, creating problems, particularly for women who changed their names after marriage so their state IDs don’t match their birth certificates.

Cornyn is not alone in exchanging his principles for Trump’s favor; he’s just the most recent. However, the manner in which he announced his flip flop was particularly tone deaf.

“If a man takes a swing at you and barely misses, that doesn’t make him a pacifist — it just means he has bad aim,” Cornyn wrote in an op-ed about the bill for the New York Post, the newspaper founded by Hamilton in 1801. “Standing still and giving him a second free swing wouldn’t be wise or honorable: it would be foolish.”

In 2016, then-candidate Trump took his first big swing at our elections when he implied — without evidence — that his opponent, Sen. Ted Cruz, had rigged the election after losing to him in the Iowa Republican caucus. Reportedly Trump even tried to get the state’s party chair to overturn the result. He’s been throwing jabs at our elections ever since. The Jan. 6 riot was a haymaker that barely missed. Given the president’s propensity to hand out Trump 2028 hats, it seems passing the SAVE Act would be, in Cornyn’s words, setting voters up to stand there while Trump takes another swing at our democracy.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

As anxiety mounts among California Democrats about the potential of a Republican being elected governor, the state party will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on polling to assess the viability of the sprawling field of candidates hoping to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to plans released Tuesday.

The move comes after nearly every Democratic candidate refused party leaders’ call last week to withdraw from the race to avoid splitting the vote in the June primary — an outcome that could lead to a Republican being elected to statewide office for the first time in two decades.

“Candidates have filed, and now they’ve got the opportunity to showcase their viability, their path to win. I want to simply ensure that everybody has information to fully understand the current state of the race,” said Rusty Hicks, the leader of the California Democratic Party.

As campaign season ramps up, the series of six polls will allow “candidates, supporters, the media, voters, anyone and everyone to have a clear understanding of what is or is not happening in this particular race,” he said.

The filing deadline to appear on the June 2 ballot was Friday. Three days earlier, Hicks released an open letter urging candidates who did not have a path to victory to withdraw from the race. Of the nine prominent Democrats who had announced runs for governor, only one heeded his call: former state Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon.

That means the eight other candidates’ names will appear on the ballot, regardless of whether they decide to later drop out. And that creates the possibility of a Republican winning the race because of how California elections are decided.

The state has a voter-approved top-two primary system, under which the two candidates who receive the most votes in the June primary advance to the November general election, regardless of party.

Two prominent Republicans will appear on the ballot: former conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Even though Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1, and the state’s electorate last elevated Republicans to statewide office in 2006, it is mathematically possible for Democrats to splinter the vote, allowing the two GOP candidates to advance.

Under such a scenario, not only would Republicans be guaranteed the leadership of the nation’s most-populous state, but Democratic voter turnout also would probably be depressed in November, potentially affecting down-ballot races such as those that could determine control of Congress.

Hicks’ call last week prompted concerns among candidates of color, including former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, that the effort was aimed at every nonwhite candidate in the race.

The state party chairman responded that his letter was not aimed at any specific candidate.

“It’s not something I lose sleep over,” Hicks said when asked about the racial claims. But he added that the voter surveys will be conducted by Los Angeles-based Evitarus, the state’s only Black- and Latino-led full-service polling firm, and will oversample historically underrepresented communities: Latino, Black and Asian American voters.

Hicks said the polling will cost “multiple six figures” but did not specify the exact amount.

The first poll will be released on March 24, and then five additional surveys will come out every seven to 10 days until voters start receiving mail ballots in early May.

“We’re putting this forward to ensure everyone is armed with the information they need to clearly have an eyes-wide-open assessment of where the state of the race currently is between now and when ballots land in the mailboxes of voters,” Hicks said.

California voters are being urged to put a poison-pill effort on the November ballot that would nullify a controversial proposed tax on the state’s billionaires.

Neither proposal has yet qualified for the ballot — supporters of each need to gather the verified signatures of hundreds of thousands of voters. But petitions that have been mailed and texted to California voters in recent days demonstrate the stakes in a contest that has drawn tens of millions of dollars in campaign spending.

“Government has wasted billions of our tax dollars on homelessness and many other failed programs with little to show for it,” reads the new mailing to voters. “We can’t afford more wasteful spending!”

The proposal is aimed at countering a proposed one-time 5% tax on billionaires assets that would fund healthcare for the state’s neediest residents, but opponents say it would lead to lost tax revenues as California’s wealthiest flee the state.

Mailers and texts recently sent to voters describe the new proposal as an effort to create a more accountable, transparent and effective state government that would require auditing of new state taxes and ensuring they comply with existing law.

The small-font description of the proposed initiative included in the mailing specifies that any new tax enacted after Jan. 1 must be deposited into the state’s general fund and conform with current state tax policy, which is an oblique reference to a prior voter-approved ballot measure requiring that a significant portion of the state’s tax revenue be spent on education.

If competing proposals appear on a ballot and are successful, the one that receives the most votes nullifies the other. There are other ballot measure proposals aimed at thwarting the billionaires tax.

The mailers and texts were funded by a committee called Californians for a More Transparent and Effective Government, which was funded by another group, called Building a Better California, according to the California secretary of state’s office.

Earlier this year, the latter group received a $20-million donation from Google co-founder Sergey Brin, $2 million from former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt and $2 million from Stripe CEO Patrick Collison, among donations from other Silicon Valley leaders, according to fundraising disclosure reports.

Attempts to reach spokespeople connected with the effort were unsuccessful Monday night.

Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff at SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, the primary union backing the billionaire tax, decried what she described as an effort by a small number of the state’s wealthiest residents to avoid paying their fair share.

“So far, those few billionaires are failing,” she said in a statement. “Despite the expensive and wasteful tactics by a small group of billionaires that aim to deny voters a choice on the billionaire tax in November, our growing coalition and volunteer base is on track with signature collection and gaining momentum. The public is crystal clear on the fact that keeping ERs and clinics open is more important than billionaires getting more tax breaks.”

California’s budget is notoriously volatile because it is largely dependent on taxes paid by its wealthiest residents. Revenue hinges on capital gains from investments, bonuses to executives and windfalls from new stock offerings, all of which are grossly unpredictable.

The billionaire tax would cost more than 200 of the state’s richest residents about $100 billion if a majority of voters support it on the November ballot.

The proposed tax would retroactively apply to billionaires’ assets as of Jan. 1, and has already prompted some of California’s wealthiest residents to leave the state. It has also created a wedge among Democrats. Some argue that it is necessary to address tax inequities that benefit the rich and harm everyone else. Among the supporters is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who kicked off the billionaire tax proposal drive in February.

But others, notably Gov. Gavin Newsom, oppose the effort, saying policies that vary by state would drive innovators and businesses outside of California.

Two years after Huntington Beach residents voted to effectively ban Pride flags from being displayed on city property, the conservative coastal city could be represented by a gay member of Congress and outspoken critic of President Trump — Rep. Robert Garcia.

That twist of fate came after last year’s unprecedented mid-decade rejiggering of California’s congressional districts.

Voters in November overwhelmingly approved Proposition 50 — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to neutralize Republican gerrymandering in Texas — to help Democrats win control of the House this November and put a meaningful check on the Trump administration.

The political tremors triggered by the ballot measure already have reshaped California’s political landscape.

Veteran Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of northern San Diego County, an incessant thorn in the backside of President Obama, has called it quits. Northern California Rep. Kevin Kiley has shed his GOP label to run as a political independent. And two Republican congressional incumbents find themselves in a political death match in a newly crafted district straddling Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

The new 42nd District remains anchored in Garcia’s home base of Long Beach. But under the new lines, it has swapped out Southeast L.A. communities such as Downey and Bell Gardens for the more MAGA-friendly cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach.

“I say that every time a district crosses the L.A.-Orange County border, a Democrat gets its wings,” said Paul Mitchell, the redistricting expert who drew the new lines for Democrats. “Drawing the Long Beach district to go down to Huntington Beach meant that you’re giving Robert Garcia a community that, in its elected City Council, has been real anathema to who he is as a person, being an out gay member of Congress.”

The change means Garcia’s district shifts rightward with a lot more Republican voters, but still has a Democratic majority. Former Vice President Kamala Harris would have still won the new district in the 2024 presidential race by 13 points, making Democrats confident that it’s still one where Garcia could win.

As the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Garcia is poised to win more power in pushing back against the Trump administration if historical precedent holds and Democrats win back the House majority in November.

Garcia was unavailable for an interview, but many of the new voters he will have to court are represented by Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine), who won the closely divided Orange County seat in 2024 and now faces a slightly bluer voting base in his newly configured district.

“I have a lot of voters to introduce myself to,” said Min, who described himself as “progressive for Orange County” because he cares about protecting civil rights but often aligns with law enforcement and small-business interests.

“The message [to new voters] is that you may not always agree with me, but that I will try my best to do what I say. I will fight to deliver on the promises I make, I will fight for the values that I represent myself as caring about. And I listen to my constituents,” he said, noting that he recently held his seventh town hall since he was elected.

In a neighboring Orange County district, Republican Reps. Young Kim and Ken Calvert are going to battle for control of the region’s only safe Republican seat post-Proposition 50. That district also crosses county lines — into Corona, Chino Hills and other parts of western Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

Republicans may be dismayed to see the two popular party leaders battling it out in what promises to be a brutal and expensive election.

Republican “primary voters are looking for how to distinguish between two of the same flavor,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican political strategist. “Republican voters are going to like both of them, so how do you make that judgment?

“Often, it comes down to who their friends are,” he said, noting that endorsements from interest groups and other elected officials are usually more valuable in primaries than general elections.

A handful of Democratic candidates have also declared for the seat, which campaign strategists said could split the liberal vote and allow both Calvert and Kim to advance to the general election ballot.

Issa bids farewell, Kiley drops GOP label

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) listens to testimony from witnesses during a House Oversight Committee hearing entitled “Reviews of the Benghazi Attack and Unanswered Questions,” in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill in 2013 in Washington.

(Drew Angerer / Getty Images)

Issa’s decision to forgo a run for reelection came as a surprise Friday, even though speculation has swirled about his future after the newly drawn congressional districts put him in a seat where Democratic voters outnumber Republicans. That was a major downgrade from his current district, which swallows up right-leaning eastern San Diego County and the conservative pockets of Temecula and Murrieta.

“This decision has been on my mind for a while and I didn’t make it lightly,” Issa said in a statement. “But after a quarter-century in Congress — and before that, a quarter-century in business — it’s the right time for a new chapter and new challenges.”

Democrats celebrated the departure of Issa, who helped fund the successful 2003 recall of California Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, and led the congressional investigation of the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi during the Obama administration.

“After over two decades of disastrous representation, Darrell Issa is once again running for the exits — and good riddance,” said Anna Elsasser, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Several Democrats had already announced plans to challenge Issa, including San Diego City Councilmember Marni Lynn von Wilpert.

Proposition 50 also split the sprawling district held by Kiley, a Republican from Rocklin, into six pieces, leaving the Northern California congressman and frequent Newsom critic with few good options.

Over the following months Kiley posted on social media to announce — like the dating show “The Bachelor” — where he would not run until it came down to two districts: a safe Republican seat that would force Kiley into a primary with longtime Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Elk Grove) or a district with a 9-point Democratic registration advantage.

Kiley chose to avoid challenging McClintock and delivered his final rose to the new 6th District along with a twist: On Friday the congressman announced he would run as an independent candidate rather than a Republican.

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) in his office in Washington in 2025.

(Richard Pierrin / For The Times)

In a lengthy social media post and accompanying video, Kiley said he has become “frustrated, sometimes disgusted, by the hyper-partisanship in Congress” and that he answers to constituents, “not party leaders.”

But without a political party behind him, Kiley’s campaign is “entirely his burden,” said Republican strategist Matt Rexroad. “He’s not going to get the party endorsement. He’s really on his own.”

Without a letter denoting a political party next to their name on the ballot, independent candidates have historically gotten lost in the mix.

One other candidate, a Christian author named Michael Stansfield, confirmed Friday that he filed to run for the seat as a Republican, giving Kiley automatic competition for conservative votes.

Several Democrats have already announced campaigns for the seat — which lumps conservative suburbs of Sacramento with liberal-leaning ones closer to the capital city — including former state Sen. Richard Pan, Sacramento Dist. Atty. Thien Ho, West Sacramento Mayor Martha Guerrero and Lauren Babb, a public affairs leader for Planned Parenthood clinics in California and Nevada.

The race could revive a pandemic-era rivalry between Kiley and Pan, who tussled over vaccine and public health rules while serving in the state Legislature.

New districts, new challengers

For some longtime Democrats such as Rep. Brad Sherman, the addition of new GOP voters could help them fend off challenges from younger progressive candidates.

Half a dozen Democrats, mostly younger progressives, have filed paperwork to challenge Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), 71, who has represented parts of the San Fernando Valley for nearly 30 years.

The 32nd District remains solidly blue post-Proposition 50, but a nearly seven-point swing to the right “makes it less likely that two Democrats go to the general, which makes it less likely that [Sherman] would get beaten,” said Mitchell.

It’s a similar story for Reps. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento), Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) and John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove), who are all in their 70s and 80s and facing younger, more progressive challengers.

While gaining more conservative voters may help some incumbents avoid facing another Democrat in November, the threat of such a faceoff is pushing them to be more active on the campaign trail, Rexroad said.

“You’re seeing more activity by Doris Matsui and Mike Thompson and John Garamendi as a result of them being challenged, because they like their seats and they’d like to hold on to them,” Rexroad said.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

OAKLAND — Betty Yee knows what people are thinking. She’s heard what they’ve said and read the many emails she’s gotten.

The former state controller has been running for California governor longer than just about anybody in the cheek-by-jowl field. And yet the Democrat is bumping along near the bottom, a blip in polls and a laggard in the money chase.

But no, Yee said, she has no intention of quitting the race, as she’s been urged, and no fear that, by staying in, she’ll help two Republicans advance to November’s runoff, locking Democrats out of the governor’s office for the first time since George W. Bush was president.

“I just don’t see it,” Yee said, given the way Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton, the top GOP contenders, are smacking each other around, hoping to emerge as the undisputed Republican standard-bearer.

Beyond that, she said, it’s not as if anyone’s running away with the contest; most polls have shown the leading candidate — which depends on the survey — standing atop the pile with around 20% support.

That isn’t exactly landslide territory.

“The public is still shopping,” Yee said. “In the next month or so, we’re going to try to get [a TV ad] on the air, basically make our case and hope that can spread as voters are getting more focused on the race.”

Which is not to say Yee is delusional.

“As a candidate, I make that assessment every day about whether we’re going to be viable or not,” she said last week, just before stopping by the Alameda County voter registrar‘s office to file paperwork for the June 2 primary.

“Right now, it’s less than a 50-50 chance,” Yee said, suggesting it’s her job to boost those odds by getting voters to appreciate what she offers, which amounts to unvarnished talk about the challenges facing the next governor and the ways Sacramento — which has been run for years by fellow Democrats — isn’t working.

“ ‘Accountability’ has kind of become a dirty word … where it’s about who we’re going to throw under the bus, rather than stepping back and saying, ‘What have we gotten for the dollars that we spend and, if we’re not getting those outcomes, how do we do better?’ ”

Yee served two terms as controller, in effect the state’s chief financial officer, and 10 years before that on the Board of Equalization, which oversees property tax assessments. She’s isn’t trying to buy the governorship, like billionaire Tom Steyer, or leverage her political celebrity, like cable-TV fixtures Katie Porter and Eric Swalwell. Instead, Yee is running a grassroots campaign, visiting nearly all 58 California counties and holding as many face-to-face meetings as humanly possible.

“I’m in the trenches,” she said. “I knock on doors every election cycle because to me, that’s the reality check of where people really are in terms of their lives.”

Which is certainly an admirable approach, albeit a rather idealistic strategy in a state of nearly 23 million voters, spread over roughly 800 miles from north to south. It would take more than two years of round-the-clock campaigning just to give each and every one a quick handshake.

The most notable feature of Yee’s candidacy is her message. She’s not selling barn-burning populism or viral take-downs of President Trump — “I don’t have any gimmicks, I don’t swear, I don’t have a reality-TV show personality” — but rather practical know-how and a deep understanding of state government.

It’s almost quaint in today’s theatrical political environment.

Seated at a sidewalk table outside a coffee stand in downtown Oakland, Yee focused on California’s stretched-thin budget, which happens to be her area of expertise.

“People ask what would you do in your first days as governor, if you have the privilege of serving,” Yee said, as her butterscotch latte sat cooling. “I’d come clean with the voters about where we are fiscally.”

After years of surpluses, she said, the state is spending more than it can afford. Facing a structural deficit, the next governor will have to cut programs and raise taxes, not just one or the other, with corporations and California’s richest residents being forced to cough up more. (She’s dubious, however, of a proposed November ballot measure imposing a one-time 5% tax on billionaires, questioning whether it would stand up in court.)

Sacramento’s credibility, Yee suggested, is on the line.

Before any expansive new programs can be implemented — and she has some notions for how to make life more affordable, increase access to healthcare and create jobs — Californians have to be convinced their tax dollars are being well spent and delivering proven results. “I would really insist on and invite stricter accountability of what we do with our money,” Yee said.

She’s not beyond criticizing the current administration.

“I mean, I’ve been termed out as controller since January 2023. I still get calls from companies in the [European Union], Canada, even Mexico about how we want to do business with California. Who do we talk to?” Yee said. “So I’ll send them over to the governor’s Office of Business Development and they tell me, ‘Well, we try to call people, but nobody’s answering our call.’ ”

(In response, a spokesman for the Office of Business and Economic Development touted California as “a premier hub for international business” and described foreign trade and investment as major drivers of the state economy.)

As for Gov. Gavin Newsom, while she supports his teenaged trolling of Trump, she said it shouldn’t be done through official channels, , or on the taxpayers’ dime.

“We have to focus on making the state work,” Yee said, “and that’s where I’m more focused on because people … want service delivery. They want government to be responsive to their needs. Somebody just pick up the damn phone on the other line to help them.”

Tough medicine, as she described it, and “stabilization” — which is “kind of my theme” — won’t make a great many hearts go pit-a-pat. But Yee hopes that straight talk and her distinct lack of ornamentation will count for something with California voters.

“The climate now is that people are very drawn by the performative approaches,” she said. “However, I think that will change. I want to give [voters] credit, because I do think they are very discerning when they’re ready to mark their ballot.”

The coming weeks will test that premise. And Yee is staying put.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — While the U.S. Senate remains deadlocked over President Trump’s call for strict citizenship voting requirements, Republicans in some states are pressing ahead with their own measures that could require documentary proof of citizenship to join or remain on the voter rolls.

Proof-of-citizenship legislation won final approval this week in South Dakota and Utah, already has passed one chamber in Florida and received a committee hearing in Missouri. In Michigan, supporters of voter citizenship documentation submitted 750,000 petition signatures this week in a bid to get a constitutional amendment on the November ballot.

Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in U.S. elections, with violators subject to fines, imprisonment and potential deportation.

When people register to vote, they affirm under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens. But Trump contends that’s not enough. He wants prospective voters to show proof of their citizenship.

Democrats and voting rights advocates say the Republican measures amount to voter suppression, as they may prevent many eligible voters from casting ballots. Similar laws have been overturned by courts as an unconstitutional burden on voting rights.

What would the federal legislation do?

The federal Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE America Act, would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote. That could be satisfied with such things as a U.S. passport, citizen naturalization certificate or a combination of a birth certificate and government-issued photo identification.

The federal bill also would require a photo identification to cast a ballot, which some states already mandate. The Republican-led House approved the legislation last month on a mostly party-line vote, but it has stalled in the Senate under a filibuster threat from Democrats.

South Dakota and Utah

Legislation passed in South Dakota and Utah would create a two-tier voting system. People who provide documentation of their citizenship could vote in all elections. Those who don’t could vote only in federal elections for president, U.S. Senate and U.S. House.

The bifurcated voting system is modeled after Arizona, where tens of thousands of voters who have not provided proof of citizenship can cast ballots only in federal elections. Arizona implemented its system after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the state could not require citizenship documentation for federal elections.

The bills in South Dakota and Utah would take effect upon a governor’s signature, meaning they could be in place for newly registered voters ahead of the November elections.

Utah’s bill also directs election officials to use an online service from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check the citizenship status of existing voters. Those flagged would be sent notices asking for proof of citizenship to remain eligible to vote in all elections.

Florida and Michigan

Neither the Michigan initiative nor legislation passed by the Florida House would require people to submit proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Instead, the measures would create a behind-the-scenes review that could result in some people being asked for citizenship documentation.

Under the Michigan measure, the secretary of state would review driver’s license records, juror records and federal Homeland Security and Social Security data to determine whether registered voters are citizens. Those flagged would be removed from the voter rolls if they cannot provide proof of citizenship.

The Florida legislation would require election officials to verify the citizenship of all registered voters using the state’s driver’s license database. Anyone whose citizenship could not be verified would be required to submit documentary proof.

Why are some pushing for proof of citizenship?

Trump and some fellow Republicans have complained for years about noncitizens voting in U.S. elections, although evidence of doing so is rare. The few cases found are not nearly enough to affect an election result, studies have shown, and those caught face severe penalty.

In 2024, a student from China was charged with perjury and attempted illegal voting after registering to vote by showing a University of Michigan student ID and signing a document asserting he was a U.S. citizen. He later contacted a local clerk’s office requesting to get his ballot back, and ultimately fled the country.

The case provided part of the impetus for the Michigan ballot initiative, said Paul Jacob, chairman of Americans for Citizen Voting, which is backing the measure.

“We want a system we can have confidence in,” Jacob said. “The way you avoid big problems in elections is to fix the small problems when they rise up and present themselves.”

Voting rights advocates’ concerns

Constitutional amendments limiting voting to “only citizens” have won widespread support when placed on state ballots. But voting rights advocates note that requiring documentary proof can get complicated.

During a recent debate in the Florida House, Democratic state Rep. Ashley Gantt recounted how her aunt was born in a South Carolina home at a time when some hospitals didn’t accept Black patients. As a result, she has no birth certificate and has had difficulty trying to demonstrate her citizenship, Gantt said.

A proof-of-citizenship law “would stop many thousands — if not more — U.S. citizens from voting in Florida,” said Michelle Kanter Cohen, policy director and senior counsel at the nonprofit Fair Elections Center. “It requires documentation that a lot of eligible citizens don’t have, or don’t have access to.”

Nationwide, about 21 million people — 9% of voting-age citizens — lack documentary proof of citizenship or cannot easily obtain it, according to a 2024 report by the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland.

Other states

Legal challenges are common when states pass proof-of-citizenship requirements for voters.

After Kansas adopted a proof-of-citizenship law 15 years ago, more than 31,000 U.S. citizens ended up getting blocked from registering to vote. Federal courts declared the Kansas law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn’t been enforced since 2018.

Two years ago, New Hampshire and Louisiana both passed proof-of-citizenship laws, prompting lawsuits. New Hampshire’s law went to trial last month and is awaiting a ruling. Louisiana’s election commissioner acknowledged in a December court filing that the requirement has not been enforced.

A nonprofit group also filed a legal challenge to a Wyoming proof-of-citizenship law passed last year. But a federal court dismissed that case while ruling the group lacked standing to sue.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

Her gleeful cruelty was matched only by the audacity of her incompetence.

Packaged in cosplay costumes — cowgirl, solider, even firefighter and pilot — we were supposed to see her as strong. But far from the mother of dragons she seems to envision herself as, she came across as the killer of Cricket (poor pup), a childish narcissist in a deadly serious job.

It was so over the top, you don’t even need a name. You know who I’m talking about. So there’s little wonder that when President Trump dumped Kristi Noem as the head of Homeland Security this week, much of America — even a bipartisan slice, I dare say — reacted much like the residents of Oz when the house landed on the wicked witch.

From late-night talk shows to the halls of power, there was more than a bit of celebration, and some actually reasonable schadenfreude. Normally, the misfortune of others isn’t something I pile on, but oh, did that woman earn some scorn.

But while I’m not one to discourage a moment of joy in these troubling days, Noem’s unceremonious firing and what comes next likely won’t provide the relief and reset many are hoping for — or are claiming this is. For all the chaos and pain that federal agents from various departments have caused under Noem’s leadership, there’s every reason to believe Trump has plans to continue and even expand his deportation efforts, and maybe even use these poorly trained, poorly vetted troops to impose his will on the next election.

What we are witnessing, rather than any acknowledgment of policy gone awry, is spotlight envy from a petty president who doesn’t like to share attention, and a backroom concession that maybe optics do matter when you’re attempting to cram white nationalism onto a pluralist country.

It was, according to Fox News and other media, a claim under oath that Trump authorized Noem to spend more than $200 million on commercials promoting herself instead of him that got her canned. Pointing to just how deeply unpopular Noem made herself even within the Trump-verse, this death knell came courtesy of a set-up by a GOP senator, John Kennedy (R-La.), who walked Noem to her own demise with awe-inspiring political skill.

After forcing Noem to claim on the record multiple times that Trump knew about and approved the mega-spend on Noem’s ludicrously over-produced ads (while also raising questions about the contract and who benefited), Kennedy — almost certainly knowing Trump would see it — laid this dig on her with dripping Southern knife-in-the-back charm.

“To me, it puts the president in a terribly awkward spot,” Kennedy drawled, likely implanting grievance directly into the president’s brain. “I’m not saying you’re not telling the truth. It’s just hard for me to believe, knowing the president as I do, that you said, ‘Mr. President, here’s some ads I’ve cut, and I’m going to spend $220 million … running them,’ that he would have agreed to that.”

Soon after, Trump posted on social media that Noem was out. I bring this up because it wasn’t, after all, the substance of Noem’s actions that ultimately got her fired. In that same hearing on Capitol Hill, Democrats blasted Noem for the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis and her subsequent false portrayal of them as domestic terrorists; the conditions inside our ever-expanding network of detention centers that have led to deaths; and even her mile-high airplane bedroom where she may or may not be conducting an extramarital affair.

None of that seems to have bothered Trump. It was her self-promotion. And it was that same self-promotion, the constant demanding of attention, that likely also ultimately convinced those around Trump to dump her — because it was adding to the deep unpopularity of immigration roundups that have been dragging down Trump’s approval ratings and which therefore could hurt the midterm chances of down-ballot Trumpers.

Last month, a Quinnipiac poll found that 58% of voters wanted Noem removed, and almost 60% of voters disapproved of Trump’s immigration policies.

Noem was the public face of that disapproval, strutting forward with arrogance in the face of public censure, a veritable clown show of ineptitude. With her ouster, and the possible replacement by another Trump stalwart, Oklahoma first-term Sen. Markwayne Mullin, Trump removes the most visible and annoying sign of the unpopularity of his policies.

While pugnacious (he’s a former MMA fighter) and happy to create his own questionable headlines, Mullin is also far more low-key than Noem, and knows who the spotlight belongs to. He is almost certain to put a more palatable face on deportations and detentions (for some anyway) simply by not being so thirsty for press. A low bar, but there you have it.

But Mullin has made it clear that he backs the most extreme immigration policies Trump world can offer, and has little difference of opinion from Stephen Miller, the architect of this bleak moment, who seems to be running things slightly off screen.

The risk now is that Mullin can continue these policies, even expand them, with less scrutiny simply because he’s less offensive than Noem. Detention centers are being built at breakneck speed. In Arizona, ICE has begun charging legal immigrants with a Cold War-era law if they don’t carry their papers with them at all times. The Department of Justice is gutting the ability to appeal deportations, in an effort to hasten them without recourse. Nothing is changing — except the speed and force with which ICE is moving forward.

And Trump has doubled down on claims that illegal immigrants are responsible for massive voter fraud, laying the groundwork for some sort of intervention in the upcoming election. Election deniers have been installed in key positions — Mullin himself is one of them.

So far from a reset, Noem’s removal is a retrenching — an effort to remove our focus from the deeply troubling link between immigration policy and the threat to democracy while actually grinding forward on that dark path.

Because Noem was a train wreck we couldn’t help but watch, at a moment when the government would prefer we stop looking.

SACRAMENTO — Despite a plea from the head of the California Democratic Party for underperforming candidates to drop out of the governor’s race, all but one of the party’s top hopefuls spurned the request.

Party leaders fear the growing possibility that the crowded field will split the Democratic electorate in the state’s June top-two primary election and result in two Republicans advancing to the November ballot, ensuring a Republican governor being elected for the first time since 2006.

His advice largely unheeded, state party Chairman Rusty Hicks on Thursday said the fate of a Democratic victory now rests squarely on the gubernatorial candidates who flouted him.

“The candidates for Governor now have a chance to showcase a viable path to win,” Hicks said in a statement Thursday.

Eight top Democratic candidates filed the official paperwork to appear on the June ballot after Hicks released a letter on Tuesday urging those “who cannot show meaningful progress towards winning” to drop out. Friday is the deadline to file to appear on the primary election ballot. On March 21, the secretary of state’s office will formally announce who will appear on the June ballot.

“It sounded like someone who has his head in the sand,” former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said of Hicks’ open letter. “[Most] of us filed within 24 hours of getting that letter. It created some press but not much else. It didn’t impact [most] of the candidates and it certainly didn’t impact my candidacy.”

Democratic strategist Elizabeth Ashford said it was appropriate for Hicks and other Democratic leaders to make a public plea as opposed to keeping such discussions solely behind closed doors.

But the response showed the limited power of the modern-day party bosses.

“It’s definitely not Tammany Hall,” said Ashford, referring to the storied Democratic political machine that had a grip on New York City politics for nearly a century. “The party and Rusty are influential and they are helpful and that is their role. I don’t think anyone would be comfortable with outright public strong-arming of specific candidates.”

Ashford, who worked for former Govs. Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with former Vice President Kamala Harris when she served as state attorney general, added that the minimal power of the state GOP is likely a factor in the dynamics of Democrats’ decision to stay in the race. Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by almost a 2-to-1 margin in the state, and Democrats control every statewide elected office and hold supermajorities in both chambers of the California Legislature.

“If there were a strong viable opposition that existed, if the Republican Party was actually relevant in California, I think that would sort of force greater unity amongst Democrats,” she said.

Just one of the nine major Democrats did heed the party chair’s message. Ian Calderon, a former Los Angeles-area Assemblyman who consistently polled near the bottom of the field, withdrew from the race and endorsed Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) on Thursday.

Candidates cannot withdraw their name from the ballot once they officially file to run for office, leading to some fears that even if other candidates drop out of the race, a crowded primary ballot could still split California’s liberal votes.

“I’m disappointed most of them will be on the ballot,” said Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the California Federation of Labor Unions, which will announce whether it endorses in the governor’s race on March 16. But “I do still think you can have people drop out of the race or become viable. I think that there are candidates who know viability is a real thing they have to show in coming weeks” before ballots start being mailed to voters.

Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said she is “still worried” about the prospect of two Republicans winning the top two spots in the June primary, shutting Democrats out of any chance of winning the governor’s office in November.

“I didn’t have any specifics of who I wanted to do what,” she said. “I’m just very, very concerned and the stakes are really high right now and seem to be getting worse by the day.”

Republican candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, said he is “confident that I’ll be in the top two” along with a Democratic candidate. “I find it very difficult to believe that the Democratic Party will just surrender California and allow two Republicans to be in the top two.”

Hilton made the comments Thursday after a gubernatorial forum in Sacramento hosted by the California Assn. of Realtors focused on housing and homeownership. Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and former Rep. Katie Porter also attended. Swalwell, who is currently in Washington, joined the panel virtually.

During the panel, candidates were in broad agreement about the need to reduce barriers and costs in order to build more housing in California, where the median single-family home costs more than $820,000. Many also endorsed proposals to disincentivize private investment firms from buying up homes as well as a $25-billion bond proposed by former Sen. Bob Hertzberg to help first-time homebuyers afford a down payment.

“This really isn’t a debate because we’re agreeing so much with each other,” Hilton said at one point during the event.

That political alignment on one of the most pressing issues facing California may explain why voters are having such a difficult time deciding who to support.

A recent poll of the Public Policy Institute of California found that the five candidates topping the crowded field were within 4 percentage points of one another: Porter, Swalwell, Hilton, Democratic hedge fund founder Tom Steyer and Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Earlier polls had Hilton and Bianco leading the field, though many voters remained undecided.

Some candidates took issue with Hicks’ push to cull the field, noting that most of the lower-polling candidates he asked to drop out are people of color.

“Our political system is rigged, corrupted by the political elites, the wealthy and well connected,” state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who is Black and Latino, said in a video posted on social media in response to the open letter. “The California Democratic Party is essentially telling every person of color in the race for Governor to drop out.”

Villaraigosa argued that enough voters remain undecided that it was too early for quality candidates to call it quits.

“Most people don’t even know who’s in the race,” said Villaraigosa. “It’s premature to be thinking about getting out of the race. I certainly am not considering it and I feel no pressure.”

Aside from the opinion polls, other indicators on who may emerge from the pack a candidates are slowly emerging.

Though it wasn’t enough to win the party’s endorsement, Swalwell won support from 24% of delegates at the state Democratic convention last month, the most of any party candidate.

While spending is no guarantee of success, Steyer has donated $47.4 million of his own wealth to his campaign. Mahan, who recently entered the race and is supported by Silicon Valley leaders, has quickly raised millions of dollars, as have two independent expenditures committees backing his bid.

Ashford said part of candidates’ decisions to remain in the race could have been driven by their lengthy political careers, as well as Democrats’ crushing November redistricting victory.

“In several cases, these are people who have won statewide office,” she said. “It’s tough to feel like there may not be a sequel to that.”

Nixon reported from Sacramento and Mehta from Los Angeles.

AUSTIN, Texas — James Talarico did not mention President Trump when he greeted exuberant supporters at his primary night celebration.

But the newly minted Democratic U.S. Senate nominee in Texas is now a front man for the political opposition to the Republican president, not just in his own state but around the country. With his victory over U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, the state lawmaker from Austin will test whether a smiling message of unity and change is enough to answer voters’ frustrations amid discord at home and now a war abroad.

“We are not just trying to win an election,” Talarico told supporters in the Texas capital early Wednesday. “We are trying to fundamentally change our politics, and it’s working.”

The campaign provided “Love thy Neighbor” signs to people in the crowd.

The question for Talarico as he heads into the general election campaign is whether he can generate enthusiasm from voters who opted for Crockett because they saw her as the more aggressive fighter against Trump. Crockett conceded to Talarico on Wednesday morning, saying that “Texas is primed to turn blue and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person.”

Talarico will need all the help he can get in a Republican-dominated state where Democrats have gone decades without winning a statewide race. He will face either U.S. Sen. John Cornyn or state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, who advanced to a Republican runoff on Tuesday.

Conventional political wisdom has it that Talarico was the stronger Democratic candidate in November, especially if Republicans nominate Paxton, a conservative firebrand who has weathered allegations of corruption and infidelity over the years.

Although Democrats are often choosing between moderate and progressive candidates in primaries, they faced a largely stylistic choice in Texas.

Talarico, 36, is a Presbyterian seminarian who quotes Scripture and rarely raises his voice. Crockett, 44, is an unapologetic political brawler who hammers Trump and other Republicans with acidic flourish.

Both have been reliably progressive votes in their current roles and telegenic faces across cable news and social media. Both represent generational change for a party with aging leadership. Each called for a more equitable economy and society. Each talked about bringing sporadic voters into their coalitions.

But Talarico’s broader argument is one that he could have made regardless of whether Trump was in the White House. Talarico’s campaign, he said often, is about addressing a country whose fundamental divide is not partisan but “top vs. bottom.” He regularly assails the rise in Christian nationalism. A former teacher, he has advocated for public education — and against Texas conservatives’ policies to restrict curriculum and reshape how U.S. history is taught.

“He’s just a good friend and he’s a serious advocate for the disenfranchised and a serious policymaker,” said Lea Downey Gallatin, 40, an Austin resident who became friends with Talarico when they interned together for a congressman.

Crockett promised Democrats that she could increase turnout within the party’s base, while Talarico campaigned on the theory that he could pull new people into the party’s tent.

“I can’t tell you how many have come up to me, whispering that they’re not a Democrat,” Talarico said as he campaigned in San Antonio in the closing days of the primary campaign. “I can’t tell you how many young people have said it’s the first time that they’ve ever voted, and that they are participating for the first time.”

As he strolled through the city, Talarico posed for pictures and greeted the singer of a Tejano band playing nearby. He later spoke to hundreds of people at the historic Stable Hall, a 130-year-old circular structure built for showing horses and now a converted event center. Hundreds more, unable to get into the full event, wound around the corner and along the sidewalk for blocks.

Inside, Lori Alvarez, a 39-year-old who works for a disaster relief nonprofit, said she supported Talarico because “he really listens to what we need.”

“I think he’s going to be able to make change in Washington for us,” said the married mother of three young girls.

Yet that was not what attracted so many voters to Crockett.

Troy Burroughs, a 61-year-old Navy retiree, called Crockett “rugged” and “the only one I see fighting for us.”

He added: “I like how she doesn’t back down from anybody.”

Burroughs said some voters probably saw Talarico as more electable because he is more soft-spoken. But, he said, “We’ve got to get into the gutter with these folks, because that’s where they are.”

Talarico, meanwhile, keeps fighting his own way.

“Tonight, the people of our state gave this country a little bit of hope,” he said Tuesday, “and a little bit of hope is a dangerous thing.”

Barrow, Figueroa and Beaumont write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta, Figueroa from Austin, Texas, and Beaumont from San Antonio.

SACRAMENTO — A proposed initiative to require Californians to show identification every time they vote, and election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens, appears to have enough support to qualify for the November ballot.

Proponents say they have collected more than 1.3 million voter signatures on petitions supporting the ballot measure, far more than required under California law, and plan to submit them to county elections officials Monday for verification.

The Republican-led push for the voter ID initiative comes at a time of growing distrust in the integrity of the electoral process nationwide, a wariness intensified by President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him and false assertions that droves of undocumented immigrants are swaying elections with illegal votes.

Proponents of voter ID contend that such laws prevent election fraud and, along with proof of citizenship mandates, prevent noncitizens from voting. Opponents say ID mandates threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans who do not have the mandated documentation readily available, and that the restrictions are unnecessary given that voting by noncitizens is rare and already outlawed in the U.S.

The partisan divide over whether voters must provide proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, one of Trump’s top priorities, continues to consume Washington. House Republicans passed the mandate in early February but the legislation — known as the SAVE Act — has bogged down in the Senate.

Democrats say that under the SAVE Act, many state driver’s licenses would not be adequate documentation to prove U.S. citizenship, forcing people to produce a passport or birth certificate — which many voters do not have. According to a 2023 survey by the Brennan Center for Justice and others, 9% of U.S. adult citizens do not have proof of their citizenship that’s readily available. The survey found that 11% of adult citizens of color were unable to readily access those documents, compared with 8% for white American adults. They accused Republicans of trying to prevent millions of Americans from voting in the next election in order to keep Congress under GOP control.

UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said that both the SAVE Act and proposed ballot measure in California are not only unnecessary, but harmful to democracy.

“Both are aimed at solving problems that don’t exist,” Chemerinsky said. “There is no evidence of a problem of non-citizens voting. Nor is there evidence of significant fraud with voters casting votes under false names. But both would limit who can vote. As for the SAVE Act, many people don’t have a birth certificate or passport.”

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) speaks during a news conference on Feb. 11 at the U.S. Capitol. Johnson was joined by Republicans to speak about the passage of the SAVE America Act, an election bill backed by President Donald Trump that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and require photo identification at the ballot box.

(Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images)

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona), who supports and voted for the SAVE Act, said it is a simple way to restore voter confidence in elections. But he said the bill’s fate appears grim.

“I don’t think they have the votes,” Calvert said Friday.

Which is why, Calvert says, California must join other states and enact commonsense voter ID and citizenship requirements that can attract bipartisan support. The longtime Republican congressman said he does not believe there has been widespread voter fraud in the U.S., or a that a flood of noncitizens has been voting, but that does not mean those have not happened to some degree and would sway both tightly contested local elections and congressional races.

“I’ve always said it’s probably a small amount, but it’s enough to change an outcome of elections, and could change the numbers we have in Congress,” Calvert said.

The California ballot measure

The petitions being submitted for the California Voter ID Initiative will be reviewed by county election officials, who must verify that the people who signed are registered voters in the state and that the proponents collected at least the 874,641 valid signatures required to qualify for the November ballot.

The ballot measure will make significant changes to how Californians vote, and enact new mandates on county elections officials. Among the top changes being proposed:

• Every time a voter casts a ballot in person in any election in California, they must present government-issued identification.
• Californians voting by mail will be required to list on the ballot envelope the last four digits of a “unique identifying number from a government issued identification” — essentially a pin number like people use at an ATM — that matches the one the voter designated when they registered to vote.
• The California secretary of state and county election officials will be required to verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens by “using government data,” which according to supporters could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, jury summons information and other government records.
• The secretary of state and county election officials must maintain accurate voter registration lists.
• If requested, the state would be required to a provide eligible voters with free voter identification cards for use during elections.

“We’re creating the legal obligation that in California, when we do voting, we want our election officers to actually give a damn about whether someone’s a citizen,” said Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), one of the main forces behind the proposed ballot measure. “That’s what we’re asking. That’s why voters support this, because it’s not a burden on the voter. It really is a burden on the election officers to do their job.”

Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego speaks at a press conference in July to announce a campaign to require voter identification in California.

(Tran Nguyen / Associated Press)

But Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, called the proposed ballot measure an underhanded attempt by Trump and Republicans to make it even harder for people in the state to vote — which they see as a political advantage. The Californians who will suffer the most are “communities of color, people with disabilities, elderly folks, folks who move around a lot, folks who have recently experienced a name change.”

“California elections are already secure. This initiative isn’t really about election integrity. It’s part of this broader national playbook from President Trump and the current federal administration to make voting harder and to create doubts in the minds of the public and to really sow chaos on election day,” Farrell said. “The measure would create new strict barriers for eligible voters. It could wrongfully flag naturalized citizens, and it will create new ways to challenge results.”

Noncitizens who vote in California risk being charged with a felony and deported, she said.

Farrell’s organization has joined with the ACLU of Northern and Southern California, Common Cause, Disability Rights California and other groups to oppose the proposed measure.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office estimates the new requirements under the proposed ballot measure could potentially cost state and local governments “tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars” annually.

What’s the law now in California?

Currently, 36 states require or request that voters provide identification at the time they cast a ballot, and 10 states have strict laws requiring people to produce government-issued photo IDs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Under current law, Californians are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail. They are required to provide identification when registering to vote, and must swear under penalty of perjury, a felony, that they are eligible to vote and a U.S. citizen.

To register to vote, Californians must provide their driver’s license number or state identification card number and the last four digits of their Social Security number, along with other information. The state is required to validate the information using relevant databases, including records at the state Department of Motor Vehicles and Social Security Administration.

Along with a driver’s license, U.S. passport or state identification card, acceptable identification also can include photo identification cards issued by a school, a credit card company, a gym, an insurance company, an employer or a public housing agency. Californians have the option of providing certain other documents, as long as they contain the person’s name and address, including: utility bills, bank statements, government checks, rental statements or government-issued bus passes.

First-time voters who did not present identification when they registered to vote must present ID the first time they cast a ballot in a federal election.

When ballots are sent by mail, election officials are required to verify a voter’s signature on the ballot by comparing it with the signature on the official voter registration records on file.

Donald Trump has never been one to play by the rules.

Whether it’s stiffing contractors as a real estate developer, defying court orders he doesn’t like as president or leveraging the Oval Office to vastly inflate his family’s fortune, Trump’s guiding principle can be distilled to a simple, unswerving calculation: What’s in it for me?

Trump is no student of history. He’s famously allergic to books. But he knows enough to know that midterm elections like the one in November have, with few exceptions, been ugly for the party holding the presidency.

With control of the House — and Trump’s virtually unchecked authority — dangling by a gossamer thread, he reckoned correctly that Republicans were all but certain to lose power this fall unless something unusual happened.

So he effectively broke the rules.

Normally, the redrawing of the country’s congressional districts takes place once every 10 years, following the census and accounting for population changes over the previous decade. Instead, Trump prevailed upon the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, to throw out the state’s political map and refashion congressional lines to wipe out Democrats and boost GOP chances of winning as many as five additional House seats.

The intention was to create a bit of breathing room, as Democrats need a gain of just three seats to seize control of the House.

In relatively short order, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, responded with his own partisan gerrymander. He rallied voters to pass a tit-for-tat ballot measure, Proposition 50, which revised the state’s political map to wipe out Republicans and boost Democratic prospects of winning as many as five additional seats.

Then came the deluge.

In more than a dozen states, lawmakers looked at ways to tinker with their congressional maps to lift their candidates, stick it to the other party and gain House seats in November.

Some of those efforts continue, including in Virginia where, as in California, voters are being asked to amend the state Constitution to let majority Democrats redraw political lines ahead of the midterm. A special election is set for April 21.

But as the first ballots of 2026 are cast on Tuesday — in Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas — the broad contours of the House map have become clearer, along with the result of all those partisan machinations. The likely upshot is a nationwide partisan shift of fewer than a handful of seats.

The independent, nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which has a sterling decades-long record of election forecasting, said the most probable outcome is a wash. “At the end of the day,” said Erin Covey, who analyzes House races for the Cook Report, “this doesn’t really benefit either party in a real way.”

Well.

That was a lot of wasted time and energy.

Let’s take a quick spin through the map and the math, knowing that, of course, there are no election guarantees.

In Texas, for instance, new House districts were drawn assuming Latinos would back Republican candidates by the same large percentage they supported Trump in 2024. But that’s become much less certain, given the backlash against his draconian immigration enforcement policies; numerous polls show a significant falloff in Latino support for the president, which could hurt GOP candidates up and down the ballot.

But suppose Texas Republicans gain five seats as hoped for and California Democrats pick up the five seats they’ve hand-crafted. The result would be no net change.

Elsewhere, under the best case for each party, a gain of four Democratic House seats in Virginia would be offset by a gain of four Republican House seats in Florida.

That leaves a smattering of partisan gains here and there. A combined pickup of four or so Republican seats in Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri could be mostly offset by Democratic gains of a seat apiece in New York, Maryland and Utah.

(The latter is not a result of legislative high jinks, but rather a judge throwing out the gerrymandered map passed by Utah Republicans, who ignored a voter-approved ballot measure intended to prevent such heavy-handed partisanship. A newly created district, contained entirely within Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, seems certain to go Democrats’ way in November.)

In short, it’s easy to characterize the political exertions of Trump, Abbott, Newsom and others as so much sound and fury producing, at bottom, little to nothing.

But that’s not necessarily so.

The campaign surrounding Proposition 50 delivered a huge political boost to Newsom, shoring up his standing with Democrats, significantly raising his profile across the country and, not least for his 2028 presidential hopes, helping the governor build a significant nationwide fundraising base.

In crimson-colored Indiana, Republicans refused to buckle under tremendous pressure from Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other party leaders, rejecting an effort to redraw the state’s congressional map and give the GOP a hold on all nine House seats. That showed even Trump’s Svengali-like hold on his party has its limits.

But the biggest impact is also the most corrosive.

By redrawing political lines to predetermine the outcome of House races, politicians rendered many of their voters irrelevant and obsolete. Millions of Democrats in Texas, Republicans in California and partisans in other states have been effectively disenfranchised, their voices rendered mute. Their ballots spindled and nullified.

In short, the politicians — starting with Trump — extended a big middle finger to a large portion of the American electorate.

Is it any wonder, then, so many voters hold politicians and our political system in contempt?

The size of the Los Angeles City Council should increase from 15 to 25 seats, the city’s Charter Reform Commission recommended Thursday.

On a 9-2 vote, the commission backed the council expansion, with supporters saying that smaller ethnic groups, including Black and Asian American and Pacific Islander residents, would be better represented.

The council has consisted of 15 members since 1925, when the city had fewer than 600,000 residents, compared with 3.9 million today.

“I think we owe the people of Los Angeles to walk out of this room saying that we are a commission that’s concerned about equity, that we are a commission that is concerned about Black and AAPI folks who live in this city,” said Commissioner James M. Thomas, who supported the expansion.

The commission also recommended ranked choice voting, where voters list candidates in order of preference, for municipal elections beginning in 2032. The city should also establish a new position, chief financial officer, which would essentially be a title change for what is now called the city administrative officer, the commission recommended.

By April 2, the commission, which has been meeting since last July, must send all its recommendations to the City Council on changes to the city’s governing charter. The council will then vote on which changes will go before city voters as ballot measures in November.

Thursday’s meeting was packed with supporters of City Controller Kenneth Mejia, who feared that the commission would gut his office’s watchdog role.

Among the CFO’s duties would be preparing the city budget, advising the mayor on fiscal policy and producing revenue forecasts — duties currently under the CAO.

Tim Riley, owner of Heavy Water Coffee Shop in Chinatown, said trust in government is at an all-time low and urged the commission to keep the controller’s powers intact.

“Kenneth has been the only form of government that we have felt has represented us as a community,” Riley said.

City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo spoke briefly and confirmed his support for designating the CAO as the city’s chief financial officer, without impacting the controller’s office. The CFO role recommended by the commission does not take away any duties from the controller.

In 1925, each of the 15 City Council members represented about 38,000 residents. Now, each council district has an average of 265,000 residents. If the council grows to 25, each member would represent roughly 159,000 residents.

The commission did not discuss whether the council members’ salaries and office budgets should remain the same, potentially increasing costs for taxpayers.

Nick Caputo, who has been chronicling the charter reform commission‘s progress online, advocated during public comment for the commission to endorse more than 23 seats. The commission had debated for weeks about whether to go as low as 23 seats or as high as 31, settling on 25 as a compromise.

With smaller council districts, Caputo said, residents will be represented by people who know their neighborhoods better.

“I’m happy that they did go to 25,” Caputo said Friday. “I think that would be a tremendous boost for not just representation, but also you’ll get real specialists.”

Commissioner Carla Fuentes noted that three City Council members — Nithya Raman, Ysabel Jurado and Heather Hutt — have publicly supported expanding the council to 25.

“This is a huge moment for the commission,” Chairperson Raymond Meza said after Thursday night’s meeting. “We have been hearing from hundreds of stakeholders, academics, members of the public, other interested parties — and to be able to begin drafting charter language for the City Council to consider is pretty momentous.”

During the debate on ranked choice voting, Commissioner Diego Andrades explained that the city would no longer hold a primary election, which would save money. Instead, all candidates would run in a general election.

Commissioner Christina Sanchez expressed concern that non-English speaking voters and those in under-served communities might have trouble understanding the complexities, which drew ire from the crowd.

“Are you calling us stupid?” two people said.

The commission also passed a recommendation that the city should approve an ordinance for language accessibility and educating residents about the new voting system.

Two days earlier, the commission voted unanimously to bifurcate the duties of the city attorney, currently an elected official who prosecutes misdemeanors and represents the city in civil litigation. Under the commission’s proposal, an appointed city attorney would take over the civil litigation duties, while an elected city prosecutor would handle the misdemeanors.

The decision to bifurcate the position came after consulting with good governance groups, the public and city departments, Andrades said. The current system allows a city attorney eyeing higher office to potentially offer bad advice to a sitting mayor, and conflicts of interest could occur on issues like police-related settlements and misconduct, he said.

Times staff writer Dave Zahniser contributed to this report.

Feb. 27 (UPI) — The Justice Department has sued another five states, including three led by Republicans, for their unredacted voter registration lists, amid the Trump administration’s the information ahead of November’s midterms.

The Trump administration has now sued 29 states and the District of Columbia for voter information, heightening Democrats’ concerns that it is seeking to meddle in the elections.

The five states sued Thursday were Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia and New Jersey. The litigation effort has so far disproportionately targeted Democratic-led states, with Utah, Oklahoma and West Virginia among the few GOP-led states sued for their voter registration lists.

Attorney General Pam Bondi argues she is charged by Congress with authority to request the sensitive election data under the Civil Rights Act of 1960, though courts have ruled against the government in the three cases that have reached decisions: California in mid-January and Michigan and Oregon earlier this month.

Courts that have so far rejected Bondi’s argument found either that she lacks the authority to compel disclosure of the unredacted voter lists, as in Oregon, or the laws she cites do not permit the government to obtain them, as in Michigan. The judge in the California case also ruled her demand “stands to have a chilling effect on American citizens like political minority groups and working-class immigrants” worried about how their information will be used.

“As several courts have already held, the Department of Justice’s request for voters’ personal information, including their driver’s license numbers and Social Security numbers, is baseless,” New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport said in a statement Thursday rejecting the Trump administration’s lawsuit.

“We are committed to protecting the privacy of our state’s residents, and we will defend against this lawsuit in court.”

Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson of Utah said the Justice Department sued her state after federal prosecutors declined Utah’s previous offer to share publicly available lists with them. The Trump administration’s lawsuit was expected, she said.

“Neither state nor federal law entitles the Department of Justice to collect private information on law-abiding American citizens,” she said in a statement. “Utahns can be assured that my office will always follow the Constitution and the law, protect voters’ rights and administer free and fair elections.”

Attorney General Gentner Drummond of GOP-led Oklahoma even responded to the lawsuit by stating that they are willing to “fully cooperate with any lawful requests related to voter fraud.”

“Oklahomans should have confidence that their state remains firmly committed to both election integrity and the protection of personal information,” he said in a statement.

The Trump administration has argued it requires the lists for election integrity purposes, raising concerns from Democrats already concerned about Trump attempting to interfere in the midterm elections as he has repeatedly expressed worries that he will be impeached if his Republican Party loses control of Congress.

Democrats and civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause and the NAACP, have each echoed warnings that the Trump administration wants to use voter registration lists to undermine the upcoming election.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division acknowledged Thursday that many states are choosing to fight them in court, but they will not be dissuaded.

“We will not be deterred, regardless of party affiliation, from carrying out critical election integrity legal duties,” Dhillon said in a statement.

SAN FRANCISCO — Leaders of the California Democratic Party, along with liberal activists and loyal power brokers, are openly expressing fear that their crowded field of candidates running for governor may splinter the vote and open the door to a surprise Republican victory in November.

Because of those concerns, the Democrats lagging at the bottom of the pack are being urged to drop out of the race to ensure the party’s political dominance in statewide elections survives the 2026 election.

“California Democrats are prepared to do what’s required,” state party chairman Rusty Hicks told reporters at the California Democratic Party’s annual convention on Friday. “We are ready and willing and able to do what’s required … to ensure we have a strong candidate coming out of the primary to do what’s required in November.”

Nine prominent Democrats are running to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, compared to two top GOP candidates, and could divide the Democratic electorate enough that the two Republicans could receive the most votes in the June primary and advance to the November election. Under California’s “jungle primary” system, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

Hicks was deferential to the Democratic candidates who have long-served in public office, and have compelling personal tales and the experience to take the helm of the state. But he said there is the harsh political reality that a viable candidate needs to raise an enormous amount of money to have a winning campaign in a state of 23.1 million registered voters and some of the most expensive media markets in the nation.

The party, its allies and the candidates themselves have a “collective commitment to ensuring we do not see a Republican elected [for governor],” Hicks said.

While Hicks and other party leaders did not publicly name the candidates who ought to leave the race, among the candidates lagging in the polls are state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former state Controller Betty Yee, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon.

Democratic voters vastly outnumber the number of registered Republicans in the state, and no Republican has been elected to statewide office since 2006.

But given the sprawling field of gubernatorial candidates, the lack of a clear front-runner and the state’s unique primary system, the race appears up for grabs. According to an average of the most recent opinion polls, conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco — both Republicans — are tied for first place, according to Real Clear Politics. Each received the support of 15.5% of voters. The top Democrat, Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, Calif., was backed by 12.5%.

In 2012, Republicans finished in first and second place in the race for a San Bernardino County congressional district — despite Democrats having a solid edge in voter registration. The four Democrats running for the seat split the vote, opening the door for a victory by GOP Rep. Gary Miller. Pete Aguilar, one of the Democrats who lost in the primary, went on to win that seat in 2014 and has served in Congress ever since.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) on Friday pushed back at the fears that two Republicans will win the top two gubernatorial spots in June.

“That’s not going to happen,” she said in an interview after speaking at a young Democrats’ reception. “And everything that you should know about the Democrats this year is we are unified. As I say, our diversity is our strength, our unity is our power. And everybody knows that there’s too much at stake.”

However, the scenario has prompted a cross section of the typically fractious party to unite behind the belief the field must shrink, whether by candidates’ choice or through pressure.

Jodi Hicks, the leader of Planned Parenthood’s California operations, said that the organization is laser-focused on congressional races, but having two Republican gubernatorial candidates “would be nothing short of devastating.”

“We have not weighed in on the governor’s race but we are paying close attention to whether this comes to play, and whether or not we do decide to weigh in and make sure that doesn’t happen,” she said.

Newsom and legislative Democrats have tried to buffer the massive federal funding cuts to reproductive care. A November election with two Republicans on the gubernatorial ballot would eliminate a key partner in Sacramento, and could impact turnout in down-ballot congressional and legislative races.

“A top-two Republican [race] would certainly have dire consequences for the midterm battle and to the governor’s office,” Jodi Hicks said.

Lorena Gonzalez, the leader of California Federation of Labor Unions, noted that her organization’s endorsement process begins on Tuesday.

“I think we are going to have some pretty honest discussions with candidates about their individual paths and where they are,” she said. “They’re all great candidates, so many of them are really good folks. But it’s starting to get to be that time.”

She expects the field to begin to thin in the coming days and weeks.

The conversation went beyond party leaders, taking place among delegates such as Gregory Hutchins, an academic labor researcher from Riverside.

“My goal at the convention, it’s not necessarily that the party coalesces around one particular candidate, but more, this is a test to see what candidates have a level of support that they can mount a successful campaign,” said the 29-year-old, who said he hopes to see some candidates drop out after the weekend.

“Am I concerned long term that [a top-two Republican runoff] could be a thing? Yes and no,” he said “I’m not concerned that we’re not going to solve this problem before the primary, but I do think we need to start getting serious about, ‘We need to solve this problem soon.’”

Not everyone agreed.

Tim Paulson, a San Francisco Democrat who supports Yee, called efforts to push people out of the race “preemptive disqualification.”

“This is nothing but scare tactics to get people out of the race,” he said. “This is still a vibrant primary. Nobody knows who the front-runner is yet.”

Bob Galemmo, 71, countered that many people did not believe Donald Trump would be elected president in 2016 and fears two Republicans could advance to the general election.

“You should never say never,” he said. “If we could get down to like four or five [candidates], that would be helpful.”

The efforts had already began.

RL Miller, the chair of the state Democratic Party’s environmental caucus, said Yee ought to drop out.

Yee, “who is at the bottom of the polls, needs to be taking a good long look at whether she is serving the party or being selfish by staying in the race,” Miller said.

Yee, a former state party vice chair, pushed back forcefully, saying pressure to drop out of the race “would just be undemocratic.”

“First of all, I’ve served this party for a long time. I don’t do it out of selfishness, by any means,” she said at a Saturday gathering where she provided breakfast burritos to delegates. “But I’ll just say this — the race is wide open.”

Yee‘s campaign manager noted that 40% of voters are undecided, and the candidate said no one has asked her directly to exit the race, but that someone started a rumor a month or two ago that she was going to drop out and run for insurance commissioner instead.

“I’m not dropping out, and I don’t think any candidate should go out,” Yee said.

Calderon said Swalwell had urged him to get out of the race.

Calderon noted the largest group of voters is still undecided and defended staying in the race to try to reach those voters after speaking at a gubernatorial forum at the Commonwealth Club on Friday

“I stay very consistent in that 1 to 3% range,” he joked. “But my challenge is access to resources and visibility, which is something that could change within a day with the right backing and support.”

Swalwell and his campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

The most prestigious board ever put together.

That is how the president of the United States, a man convicted of fraud, described his new team focused on international relations. A team that does not include representatives from our closest neighbors — Mexico and Canada — but did save room for leaders accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

Now, we do not know whether President Trump created his “Board of Peace,” which this week held its first meeting, specifically to undermine the authority of the United Nations. But we do know that the president has pledged $10 billion in tax dollars to the board’s mission while still owing the U.N. half that amount in back payments. We do not know whether Trump, who is indefinitely the leader of this peace board, intends to relinquish that power after he leaves the White House. But we do know he is still trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Whether the “Board of Peace” is the most prestigious panel ever assembled is debatable. What is not debatable is that it was conceived by an adjudicated sexual abuser who is referenced in the released Epstein files some 38,000 times.

That is not my take.

That is simply what is happening.

Which is why the president encourages his supporters to ban books and reject journalism. He doesn’t want voters to pay attention. He doesn’t want voters to understand his actions.

Ten years ago this month — after his Nevada caucus victory speech — Trump said, “I love the poorly educated.” And his reliance on this base is why, over the past decade, he and other conservatives have purposely misconstrued the term “woke” as a catch-all slur toward progressive and far-left policies. It used to mean “aware” and “informed.” The term was not born out of modern politics but rather the need to understand the history of the social economic systems we all are living in. The alternative is to be blindly led by an unscrupulous leader most concerned with his own well being.

Being “woke” is why the Boston Tea Party happened in 1773; it is why Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” in 1776; it is why Republicans formed the Wide Awakes to help get Abraham Lincoln elected in 1860. When voters understand the context in which decisions are made, we are better equipped to address shortcomings at the ballot box and in our daily lives.

Trump’s self-proclaimed love for the poorly educated has nothing to do with progressive policies or college degrees and everything to do with whom he can convince to believe him. And by making “woke” an insult, Trump and other conservatives have politicized the very tool necessary to help the country fulfill its promise: information.

This threat is the reason his administration attacks, and even arrests, journalists; the reason he refers to reports he doesn’t like as “fake news”; the reason he fired the labor statistics chief after an unflattering jobs report last year. He’s waging a war on information.

The reason 2025 marked the worst nonrecession year for job growth since 2003 isn’t that the country was “woke.” It’s because of shortcomings in leadership.

When Trump returned to the White House, he made lowering the U.S. trade deficit a key component to his economic policy. In 2024, the deficit was $903.5 billion. In 2025, it was $901.5 billion — and America’s families paid $230 billion more for goods because of his yo-yo tariff policies.

He told his supporters that other nations would be paying for the tariffs he enacted — obvious nonsense to anyone who attended a day of Econ 101. And we know that as a result of his reckless and ignorant policies, farmers in particular suffered. It’s not clear whether that financial burden was a consideration when the Supreme Court on Friday declared the president’s sweeping tariffs to be illegal. What we do know is before Trump entered politics, his businesses filed for bankruptcy six times — so perhaps he was never the economic savant he claimed to be.

Just as the saga of the Epstein files reveals he is not the protector of women and young girls that he claimed to be.

Just as his recent attacks on the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments show he was never the defender of the Constitution he took an oath to be.

Acknowledging the laundry list of untruths tied to his promises and presidency is not political or a symptom of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” It’s simply having information: the one thing that helps voters understand why things are the way they are. The one thing the president hopes his supporters never wake up to see for themselves.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow