voter

Contenders in the race to be California’s next governor will meet on stage Tuesday night for the second of three planned debates before the June 2 primary.

Last week’s meet-up in San Francisco didn’t provide the fireworks or memorable moments the candidates, and many voters, were hoping for — but it did manage to remind us all that ballots will hit mailboxes in coming days and decisions must be made.

Ahead of the forum at Pomona College in Claremont, a trio of our Times columnists — Gustavo Arellano, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria — weigh in with a cheat sheet on what to look for, what to expect and why it matters.

Chabria: I’ll start us off with the obvious — let’s hope Tuesday gives us at least one breakout candidate who comes with some fire and vision.

After last week’s debate, there was lots of social media posturing about who won and who trolled whom the best. But as one of the six people who actually watched, I can tell you it was mostly bland with no clear winner.

That’s in large part because many of the Democrats have only slivers of daylight between their policies, and ditto for the two Republicans.

So my hope is that at least a single candidate ups their game and comes to voters with not just attacks, but something that inspires, something that sets them apart. This far into the race, that hope is slim, but I’m keeping it alive.

What are your hopes and dreams — and maybe fears — going into this?

Barabak: I know I sound like a broken record. (Google it, kids.) Anita, you and I, in particular, have gone round and round on this one. But I don’t feel a particular need for inspiration from the guys and gal that are running for governor. If I want inspiration, I’ll go back and reread the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail.” Or listen to a Grateful Dead show from May of ’77.

Give me someone who can work with the Legislature, and as difficult as it may be, President Trump, to get stuff done.

Pursue a “California First” agenda, to borrow a phrase. Put voters and their interests ahead of ego, careerism and personal ambition. Start by pledging, if elected, to serve a full four-year term and not run for president so long as they’re serving as governor.

Of course, that kind of promise can be broken. (See then-Gov. Pete Wilson, who made that vow when he sought reelection in 1994, then turned around and — unsuccessfully — sought the White House in 1995.)

At least we’d have them on the record.

Arellano: I’m all for this morass of democracy. A small part of me wants two Republicans to make it into the general election because the California Democratic Party deserves a meteor-like extinction event. No GOP statewide elected official since Schwarzenegger. Supermajority in Sacramento for most of a decade.

And what do they have to show for their one-party rule? This.

But then I hear Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton mewl, and I’m suddenly hoping alongside Anita that someone vanquishes their foes with an unassailable vision. Problem is, I think all the candidates have reached their ceiling. The only one who has any chance of showing us something new is Xavier Becerra, who needs to drop his Dudley Do-Right shtick for a second and channel the inner cholo we all know is in him.

Instead, he was at a fundraiser in Fullerton over the weekend with professional Latinos — you should’ve been kicking it with my cousins in Anaheim who were watching their Dodgers slaughter the Cubs, loco, because they’re the ones who’ll make or break you.

Chabria: How the first potential Latino governor is failing to excite Latino voters is exactly what I’m talking about. If you don’t give voters something to be excited about, they don’t vote, and our fragile democracy needs every voter it can get.

But if we are forced to vote on nuance, let’s do it informed. Here are some questions I hope these candidates have to answer:

For San José Mayor Matt Mahan, funded in the mega-millions by tech bros, it’s not enough to promise to regulate artificial intelligence, or billionaire influence, for that matter. Tell us what those regulations look like and tell us how you reconcile your own politics with those of big donors such as Joe Lonsdale, co-founder of Palantir, who has called Gen Z the “loser generation.”

For billionaire investor Tom Steyer, who has said he will reform Proposition 13 (which limits property taxes) for corporate land owners: What assurances do homeowners have that they won’t be next?

For former Rep. Katie Porter, polling third among Democrats, the clock is ticking — is there a point where you will drop out and endorse a fellow candidate if you can’t break through? Same-ies for state schools superintendent Tony Thurmond and former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who are included in this debate but polling in the single digits.

And I agree with you, Gustavo, Becerra is coming across as resolutely bland, but to Mark’s point, he’s using that to position himself as drama-free and experienced. So in an era when fraud and abuse are the words of the day, how does Becerra explain not catching fraud in his own office?

Mark and Gustavo, what are the topics you hope candidates will be grilled on?

Arellano: Slight correction, Anita — California already had a Latino governor: Romualdo Pacheco, the lieutenant governor who replaced Newton Booth in 1875 when the latter became a U.S. senator. Pacheco — a Latino Republican! — served all of 10 months before becoming a Congress member.

See, Californians? Political musical chairs is as much a part of our state as free-spending oligarchs — but enough about Steyer.

Issues? Immigration, of course. I want each one to address the state’s undocumented immigrants for 90 seconds in whatever matter they choose. Water: Believe in climate change or not, but our supply is shrinking faster than the gubernatorial chances of Thurmond. And since I believe that the more random the question, the more you learn about who a candidate truly is: What’s the best song about California, and why? Anyone who says “California Girls” or “California Gurls” deserves disqualification, even if both songs rock.

Barabak: Not an issue, per se. What I’d like to see is a bit of backbone.

The next governor is going to have to make some tough decisions, especially around spending priorities and/or cuts to the state budget. Inevitably, the next governor is going to make some people unhappy. And I’m not talking about just those members of the opposite party, or folks who didn’t vote for them.

So I’d like each of them to name an issue where, for the good of the state, they’re willing to take on their friends and allies, knowing they’ll be displeased. If you’re a Democrat, name something you would do that would, say, tick off organized labor. And for Republicans Bianco and Hilton, what’s an area where you’re willing to say to Trump, “Sir” — the president imagines everyone bowing and calling him sir — “you’re dead wrong about this and California needs to go its own way, whether you like it or not.”

Arellano: Good luck seeing any candidate buck their masters. I think we need to lower our expectations way, way, well, lower. So a simple question to conclude: Who needs to do the most tonight besides Mahan’s beard? I think it’s my fellow Orange Countian, Katie Porter. She’s now to the right of Steyer and left of Becerra, which means she needs to peel off supporters from both of them and grab undecideds if she wants to advance. Not sure how she can pull that off — but if anyone can bring necessary fire, it’s her.

Chabria: Porter definitely has a lot on the line.

One standout moment for her, Steyer or Becerra — good or bad — could tilt this very-much-undecided race — not so much because people will be watching, but because it will fuel the social media and advertising sure to follow. These next two debates are high-stakes, not just to avoid a Biden performance, but to do something, anything, that fires up momentum.

Politics ain’t beanbag, as the old saying goes, and it’s time to bring the heat. So in the spirit of Gustavo’s song request, I’ll leave it with these lyrics from the Rivieras (or the Ramones, if you prefer): We’re out there having fun, in the warm California sun.

Barabak: Not to be the pooper at the party but I think we shouldn’t overstate the import of tonight’s debate. For one thing, as Anita suggested, the audience will be exceedingly small — minuscule, even, relative to the state’s 23 million registered voters.

We know, from experience, that most folks will take away what they do based not on the debate itself but rather the coverage of it and whatever soundbites, memes, chatter and advertising it produces — and that’s only to the extent people are paying attention.

So, yes, what’s said and done in Pomona, will matter some. But we’re still five weeks away from election day, and I suspect many folks will be waiting at least another week or three to start focusing on the race and finally make up their minds.

I’ll end with something that Jerry Garcia sang: All good things in all good time.

RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia Supreme Court justices on Monday questioned whether the state’s Democrat-led legislature complied with constitutional requirements when it sent a congressional redistricting plan to voters, in a case that could help decide the balance of power in the U.S. House.

The new districts, which could net Democrats four additional seats, won narrow voter approval last week. But a Republican legal challenge contends the General Assembly violated procedural rules by placing the constitutional amendment before voters to authorize the mid-decade redistricting. If the court agrees that lawmakers broke the rules, it could invalidate the amendment and render last week’s statewide vote meaningless.

The Virginia court proceedings mark the latest twist in a national redistricting battle between Republicans and Democrats seeking an advantage in a November midterm election that will determine whether Republicans maintain their narrow majority in the U.S. House.

President Trump kicked off a tit-for-tat round of gerrymandering last summer when he urged Texas Republicans to redraw districts to their favor in an attempt to win several additional House seats. That set off a chain reaction of similar moves in other states, leading to the voter approval last week of Virginia’s new map.

Next up is Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has included congressional redistricting on the agenda for a special session of the GOP-controlled Legislature beginning Tuesday.

Virginia arguments focus on what counts as an `election’

During Monday’s arguments, the Virginia Supreme Court focused on whether the new congressional districts should be invalidated because of the process used by lawmakers. The justices issued no immediate ruling.

Because the state’s redistricting commission was established by a voter-approved constitutional amendment, lawmakers had to propose an amendment to redraw the districts. That required approval of a resolution in separate legislative sessions, with a state election sandwiched in between, to place the amendment on the ballot.

The legislature’s first vote occurred in October — while early voting was underway but before it concluded on the day of the general election. Judicial questioning focused on whether that was too late, because early voting already had begun.

Attorney Matthew Seligman, who defended the legislature, argued that the “election” should be defined narrowly to mean the Tuesday of the general election. In that case, the legislature’s first vote on the redistricting amendment occurred before the election and was constitutional, he told judges.

But an attorney arguing for the plaintiffs, Thomas McCarthy, said “election” means the entire period during which people can cast ballots, which lasts several weeks in Virginia. If that’s the case, then the legislature’s initial endorsement of the redistricting amendment came too late to comply with the state constitution, he said.

Attorneys argue over the rights of voters

The purpose of Virginia’s two-step amendment process, with an intervening election, is so voters can know whether legislative candidates support or oppose a proposed constitutional amendment, McCarthy said.

He pointed to the case of Democratic voter Camilla Simon, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit alongside Republican state lawmakers, who cast an early vote last fall for Democratic Del. Rodney Willett. After she voted, Willett sponsored the Democratic redistricting amendment, and Simon wished she could have undone her vote, McCarthy said.

“None of these voters had any idea this was coming, and that’s not how this process is supposed to work,” McCarthy told the justices.

Those defending the Democratic redistricting plan also contend that the voters’ will should be respected.

The people voted to ratify the constitutional amendment, “and the challengers are asking to overturn that democratic result,” Seligman told reporters after the arguments.

Nationwide redistricting battle has no clear winner so far

So far, the two major parties have battled to a near draw in the states that have redrawn their congressional maps for this year’s midterms.

Republicans think they could win up to nine more seats under revised districts in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Democrats think they could win as many as 10 additional seats under new districts in California, Utah and Virginia. But legal challenges remain in both Virginia and Missouri.

Virginia currently is represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans who were elected from districts imposed by a court after a bipartisan redistricting commission failed to agree on a map after the 2020 census. The new districts, which narrowly won voter approval on April 21, could give Democrats an improved chance to win 10 districts.

Some candidates already have begun campaigning based on the new districts in advance of the state’s Aug. 4 primary election.

More court battles could remain in Virginia

In January, a judge in rural Tazewell County, in southwestern Virginia, ruled that lawmakers failed to follow their own rules for adding the redistricting amendment to a special session last fall. Circuit Judge Jack Hurley Jr. also ruled that lawmakers failed to initially approve the amendment before the public began voting in last year’s general election and that the state had failed to publish the amendment three months before the election, as required by law. As a result, he said, the amendment is invalid and void.

The Virginia Supreme Court placed Hurley’s order on hold and allowed the redistricting vote to proceed before hearing arguments on the case.

During Monday’s arguments, justices also raised questions about the ability of lawmakers to expand the agenda for their special session and whether the three-month public notice requirement was important enough to thwart a voter-approved amendment.

Republicans have filed at least two additional legal challenges, which also are winding their way through the courts.

Robertson and Lieb write for the Associated Press. Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo. AP writers Allen G. Breed in Richmond and Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.

In a treehouse nestled in redwoods north of San Francisco, Gov. Newsom stood cold and hungry as Sergey Brin, the world’s fourth-richest man, and his wellness-influencer girlfriend told him they were leaving the state.

It was late in the evening at a Christmas party hosted by crypto titan Chris Larsen — featuring singer Janelle Monáe and a towering abominable snowman with glowing red eyes — when Brin and his partner, Gerelyn Gilbert-Soto, confronted Newsom about a new proposal to tax billionaires in California, according to people who’ve spoken with the governor. Such a levy could hit Brin’s stake in Alphabet Inc. and his $272.6 billion fortune.

Newsom, who opposes the wealth tax, was still telling people about the lengthy exchange at the party months later, complaining of a lingering cold the pair had given him, according to the people, who asked not to be named discussing private conversations with the governor.

Brin, meanwhile, followed through. He left the state, bought a lakeside mansion in Nevada, and started bankrolling a billionaire political uprising in California.

Newsom, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on the interaction. “The governor has been very clear with everyone, no matter who they are, that this effort will do serious damage to the state, including for public safety workers and schools, at the expense of one special interest group,” Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson, said.

A representative for Brin didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Brin’s political push reflects a broader awakening among California’s ultrawealthy. Over the past six months, the proposed billionaire tax and a heated governor’s race have drawn tech titans and business leaders more directly into the state’s affairs — a space many of them have traditionally kept at arm’s length.

Prior to this year, Brin’s last contribution in a California election cycle was 2010 when Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor and the Google co-founder largely backed climate causes. He’s now spent more than $58 million in the last four months, including an extra $9 million disclosed late Friday, but more importantly has helped mobilize a network of fellow tech titans in a push to sway state issues.

“The wealth tax was a wake up call, it was a fire that just lit up Silicon Valley literally in a matter of weeks,” said Steven Maviglio, a veteran Democratic strategist. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

Altogether, ultrawealthy donors have injected more than $270 million into California’s political scene in this election cycle. Outside of the wealth tax, billionaire Tom Steyer is emerging as a top Democratic candidate for governor after the downfall of former Representative Eric Swalwell following allegations of sexual assault. Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, has spent more than $140 million in his election bid, crowding TV airwaves with ads and labeling himself a “class traitor” with a campaign modeled after Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

Ballots for the June 2 primary election start going out next week. Brin and a cohort of the ultrawealthy including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and venture capitalists Vinod Khosla and John Doerr have plowed millions into supporting Matt Mahan, a Silicon Valley mayor, with a back-to-basics agenda and a penchant for taking on the state’s Democratic establishment.

That money has helped Mahan buy airtime and attracted controversy, but his polling numbers remain stuck in the single digits while Steyer’s well-funded progressive campaign is gaining favor with voters. Brin has also backed Republican Steve Hilton, who’s currently leading polls.

“You have two polar opposites going on. You have a billionaire running who has actually fully adopted an agenda that the vast majority of voters agree with: Taxing billionaires, funding healthcare, fighting back against ICE,” said Lorena Gonzalez, head of the state’s largest union group, the California Federation of Labor Unions. “And then you have billionaires pushing a candidate whose talking points are apologetic to the tech industry.”

The billionaire political activism in California mirrors larger shifts in Silicon Valley and the nation. President Donald Trump has given tech billionaires broad access to the White House, inviting Brin and other industry captains over for dinner and to join advisory boards.

Back in September, Trump singled out Gilbert-Soto as Brin’s “really wonderful MAGA girlfriend” at a White House dinner also attended by Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook and Sam Altman. She has publicly supported Republican Steve Hilton for California governor, a candidate Trump endorsed and Brin has also donated to.

In California, Brin’s newfound political action was catalyzed by the wealth tax proposal, which would levy a one-time 5% tax on billionaires to help offset federal healthcare cuts. In a Signal group chat earlier this year with other Silicon Valley elite, Brin floated the idea of raising hundreds of millions of dollars to influence California politics, according to a person who saw the message.

Brin left California for Nevada ahead of a Jan. 1 residency deadline for the proposed wealth tax. He moved to a $42 million mansion on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe, featuring two glass-walled funiculars.

Shortly after leaving California, Brin contributed $20 million to a new group dedicated to fighting the tax while also pushing pro-business and housing affordability policies, Building a Better California, making him the single largest contributor. He added $37 million over the spring, as the group quickly started supporting a trio of anti-wealth tax measures that could nullify a billionaire tax if it gets passed in an election. One of the measures, the so-called Transparency Act, has enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot, its backers claimed on Monday.

Building a Better California “remains fixed on long-term reforms supported by most Californians: housing affordability, stable funding for education, infrastructure investments, and government accountability,” a spokesperson said.

Joining Brin in the effort were other billionaires, including former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Stripe CEO Patrick Collison and venture capitalist Michael Moritz. Peter Thiel, who also left California ahead of the New Year’s Day deadline, gave $3 million to a separate committee opposing the wealth tax.

“They don’t trust California anymore,” said David Lesperance, a tax attorney who specializes in relocations and has helped move five families out of the state because of the wealth tax threat.

Brin and his fellow billionaires helped push up the costs to gather the more than 870,000 signatures required to qualify a ballot measure. This forced the union behind the wealth tax, SEIU-UHW, to spend more on their efforts.

Now, the union says it has succeeded in getting the signatures it needed, which will likely force the business leaders opposing it into further spending.

“A very small group of the most controversial billionaires on the planet tried to stop Californians from being able to save their local emergency rooms and hospitals — but our current signature tally proves frontline healthcare workers will prevail in bringing this commonsense proposal to voters,” said Suzanne Jimenez, SEIU-UHW’s chief of staff. “When our growing coalition files these signatures, David will have won the first round against Goliath.”

Other billionaires have bankrolled their own political initiatives, including Larsen, who set up his own network of influence groups with names like Grow California and Golden State Promise.

Many in Sacramento are skeptical that Brin and his fellow ultra-rich will succeed in swaying California state politics. They point to the failed candidacy of former eBay executive Meg Whitman, who spent around $144 million of her own fortune to become governor, or even venture capitalist Tim Draper’s longshot initiative to split California into six separate states.

“They’re trying to extrapolate from their own industry, which might have been fabulously successful, that they know something about political advertising, when they don’t,” said Garry South, a veteran Democratic strategist. “They think, ‘Hey, I’ve got money I can throw it around,’ and they don’t really do their homework.”

Political consultants describe their frustration with some wealthy tech donors, who often view their political giving through an investment lens, promising big checks and not following through if they don’t see momentum. That’s led to questions about whether the California billionaire activism would continue if Mahan’s governor bid fails and the wealth tax passes.

Even Larsen, who’s worth around $13 billion, has expressed anxiety that not enough business leaders are stepping into politics. “It’s a lot of talk, and they’re happy, but we don’t see the firepower we need to take on the SEIUs,” he said, referring to the state’s largest union.

Newsom, for his part, acknowledges that many of the state’s wealthiest residents are willing to donate significant sums of money, but want to do it on their own terms and not through a tax.

“Some will never give a penny away,” he said at a Bloomberg News event in January, not long after his encounter with Brin in the treehouse. “Some I respect. Some I don’t.”

Kamisher and Carson write for Bloomberg.

Supporters of a billionaire tax said Sunday that they had gathered nearly twice as many signatures as necessary to qualify the controversial proposal for the November ballot.

Opponents of the proposal argue that it already has driven wealthy Californians — crucial to funding the state’s volatile budget — to other parts of the nation. Advocates, however, say the proposed tax is critical to compensate for federal healthcare funding cuts that will harm the state’s most vulnerable residents.

“Most Californians and most billionaires recognize how reasonable and necessary this proposal is — both to keep emergency rooms open and to save California businesses from closing,” said Suzanne Jimenez, the chief of staff of the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the chief proponent of the effort. “A very small group of the most controversial billionaires on the planet tried to stop” this effort, she added, but when “our growing coalition files these signatures, David will have won the first round against Goliath.”

The union, which represents more than 120,000 healthcare workers, patients and consumers, launched the effort to counter massive healthcare funding cuts that President Trump signed last year. The California Budget & Policy Center estimated that as many as 3.4 million Californians could lose Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals could shutter, and other healthcare services would be slashed unless new funding was found.

The proposal would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets valued at more than $1 billion, with some exclusions, such as property. The levy could be paid over five years. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs, and the remaining funds would be spent on food assistance and education programs. The proposal would cost the state’s richest residents about $100 billion if a majority of voters support it.

Supporters need to submit the signatures of nearly 875,000 registered voters to county elections officials by June 24. They say they have gathered nearly 1.6 million signatures.

Opponents of the measure, which has divided liberals — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) supports it while Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom opposes it — said the proposal would destroy California’s economy and budget, while doing nothing to address the state’s underlying financial issues.

“This wealth tax would have a devastating impact on our economy, state budget, and the cost of living for all Californians,” said Rob Lapsley, president of the bipartisan California Business Roundtable. “The measure doesn’t do anything to reduce the state’s $35-billion-plus budget deficit and does nothing to address the decade of overspending that led to the structural deficit. In fact, because the state relies so heavily on high-income-earner tax revenue, this measure could lead to reduced budget revenue in the long term as highly mobile wealthy individuals leave the state to avoid this new tax.”

He also argued that the proposal could result in higher taxes for all Californians.

“This is an everyone tax that is called a billionaire tax,” Lapsley said, “and we will ensure Californians understand the truth on the devastating consequences this initiative will have.”

SACRAMENTO — A ballot measure that would require Californians to show identification every time they vote in person, or use a special pin number when submitting mail-in ballots, has qualified for the November ballot, elections officials announced Friday.

The measure also would require election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens, aligning with a Republican-led push for new restrictions on voters in the wake of President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, and that undocumented immigrants are swaying elections by voting illegally.

Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio from San Diego has been pushing the measure for several years, while Trump and Republicans also are seeking a similar initiative at the federal level.

If passed, the California ballot measure would require a voter to present government-issued identification, such as a state driver’s license, every time they vote. Voters mailing ballots would be required to write a four-digit number, essentially a pin number, on their ballots matching the one generated when they registered to vote.

The pin would come from ID such as a driver’s license, or could be generated from the county. The vast majority of Californians mail in their ballots in elections.

Under the measure, election officials also must ensure that registered voters are U.S. citizens by using information from government records, which could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, and maintain accurate voter registration lists.

DeMaio said the measure is different than a federal proposal, known as the SAVE Act, which stalled out in the U.S. Senate this week.

DeMaio said the state ballot measure “does not do away with mail in ballots, because voters of all political backgrounds like the convenience of mail in ballots. So we want to keep that convenience.”

The ballot measure needs a simple majority to pass.

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.

Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, told the Times that her group is committed to fighting the measure, arguing it would make it harder for people in the state to vote.

She said that people may forget to use a pin on their mail-in ballot, leading to their vote being disqualified. Similar changes in Texas, she said, led to a rise in rejected ballots due to technical errors.

“It doesn’t really weed out illegal voting,” which doesn’t actually exist, she said, “but it does cause more ballots to be incorrectly flagged and ultimately rejected.”

ACLU of Northern and Southern California, Common Cause, Disability Rights California also oppose the measure.

DeMaio filed for the ballot initiative in 2021 and 2023, but did not move forward with the signature collection process in order to fine-tune the ballot language.

He said his ballot measure wasn’t focused primarily about making sure that undocumented people don’t vote.

“That’s one element of concern that we’ve heard from some groups, but it really is making sure that, number one, we properly maintain our voter rolls,” he said.

Democrats on Wednesday celebrated an election win in Virginia that could put them slightly ahead in the national redistricting competition that President Trump triggered in an attempt to preserve his party’s House majority in this year’s midterms, but it will not be the final round.

Now that it’s been approved by voters, the new Virginia map will have to clear additional legal hurdles. On Wednesday, the state attorney general’s office said it would immediately appeal a ruling earlier in the day from a judge in rural southern Virginia who ordered that the results of Tuesday’s vote not be certified.

Ultimately, the Virginia Supreme Court will decide whether Democratic lawmakers violated procedural rules when they referred a constitutional amendment to the ballot authorizing the new U.S. House districts that could help Democrats win as many as four additional seats in the state. If so, that could invalidate the map voters narrowly approved Tuesday.

What happens next in Florida also will matter.

The state’s Republican-controlled Legislature is to meet in a special session next week that GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis called in part to draw a new map to expand the party’s congressional majority there. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to issue an opinion by the end of June in a Louisiana case that could overturn a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and lead to redrawn political maps across the South, though almost all of those could not happen until 2028.

After voters passed the Virginia amendment, Democrats could tentatively claim that they netted 10 seats nationally from the mid-decade redistricting, compared with the nine that Republicans claim. Even if things swing again in the GOP’s favor, the net result of Trump’s campaign would be at best an incremental increase in the number of GOP-leaning House seats at a time when his approval rating is dropping and Republican anxiety over losing control of Congress in November is rising.

“We have successfully blunted Trump’s attempt to completely hijack the midterms,” said John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

Many Republicans agreed.

“The GOP will now lose net seats across the country. If you’re going to pick a fight, at least win it,” Ari Fleischer, who was a spokesman for President George W. Bush, posted on the social media site X after the Virginia vote. “All this was foreseeable and avoidable. We should not have started this fight.”

Adam Kincaid, executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, argued that it is too soon to declare one party a victor.

“It’s an ongoing process with many legal challenges pending, and it’s far too early for sweeping statements on the final outcome,” he said.

Trump on Wednesday tried to undermine the Virginia result by leveling groundless accusations of fraud similar to ones he made after losing the 2020 presidential election. He called the Virginia vote “RIGGED” and “Crooked” in a post on his social media site and added, “Let’s see if the Courts will fix this travesty of ‘Justice.’”

Redistricting spread from Texas to other states

Redistricting is typically done every 10 years after each census, unless ordered by a court. But last summer, Trump pushed a redrawing in Texas, prodding the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature to add up to five winnable House seats for his party. Trump then began pressuring other Republican-run states to follow. Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio have since created more GOP-leaning seats in addition to Texas.

Democrats began to fight back, even though they were more constrained because several Democratic-controlled states had maps drawn by independent commissions rather than lawmakers and governors.

To counter Texas, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, pushed the Democratic-controlled Legislature to place a redistricting initiative on last fall’s ballot. After voters overwhelmingly approved it, the measure will replace a commission-approved map with one that could gain Democrats five seats.

Democrats reclaimed the Legislature and governor’s office in November in Virginia and swiftly moved to replicate California’s move with an even more aggressive redistricting plan. It replaces a congressional map imposed by a court after the last census that had resulted in a 6-5 edge for Democrats with one that could allow Democrats to win as many as 10 seats.

“We are not going to let anyone tilt the system without a response,” state Senate President L. Louise Lucas said at a news conference Wednesday.

Courts could still have a say on redistricting

In Washington, U.S. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York warned Florida Republicans, who have been openly nervous about redrawing their district boundaries and potentially spreading their core voters too thin before an election that appears to be trending against them.

“Our message to Florida Republicans right now is, ‘F around and find out,’” Jeffries said.

House Majority Forward, the nonprofit arm of the super political action committee aligned with House Democrats, has spent nearly $60 million to push back against Republicans’ redistricting efforts. Some $40 million of that was on the Virginia campaign.

Another obstacle in Florida is an anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment that was approved by state voters in 2010. It is likely that any new Florida map would trigger significant litigation, although six of the state Supreme Court’s seven justices were appointed by Republicans.

Nicholas Stephanopolous, a Harvard law professor, said a challenge for DeSantis is that the Florida amendment forbids drawing lines for purely partisan purposes, so he has to find some other excuse for revising the map. “Even with that sort of acquiescent state supreme court, I don’t think it’s a done deal,” Stephanopolous said.

The Virginia move comes with its own legal issues. Republicans have challenged the process that Democrats used to place the measure on the ballot and the state Supreme Court opted to wait for the vote before even scheduling arguments in the case. It is unclear when a ruling could come.

Wednesday’s ruling stopping certification came from a separate case that Republicans filed with the same lower court judge, whose initial ruling against the initiative was put on hold by the state supreme court.

“The ballot box was never the final word here,” Terry Kilgore, the Virginia House Republican leader, said in a statement after Tuesday’s vote. “Serious legal questions remain about both the wording of this referendum and the process used to put it before voters.”

The biggest legal wild card is held by the U.S. Supreme Court. Its conservative majority could throw out a requirement under the Voting Rights Act that in areas with a large minority population, mapmakers draw districts that are more favorable to the election of minority candidates.

That provision has led to the creation of several majority-minority congressional seats, especially in the South. Without it, Republicans in conservative states could shrink the number of U.S. House seats winnable by Democrats even further.

But it’s unlikely that any state other than Louisiana, which brought the lawsuit the high court will rule on, would be able to adjust its congressional lines in time for November even if the court eliminates that provision, known as Section Two. That’s because the November election is already officially underway in most states and candidate filing deadlines — and, in some cases, primary elections — have already passed.

Riccardi and Lieb write for the Associated Press. AP writers Lisa Mascaro and Leah Askarinam in Washington contributed to this report.

Former state Controller Betty Yee dropped out of the 2026 governor’s race on Monday, citing low levels of support from voters and donors.

Yee, a Democrat, was part of a sprawling field of politicians vying to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. But despite the bevy of prominent candidates running to lead the nation’s most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy, this year’s governor’s race has long lacked a clear front-runner well known by the electorate.

“The whole notion that voters are looking for experience and competence is not a top priority, and that’s been really my wheelhouse in terms of how we grounded this campaign was based on my experience,” she said in a virtual press conference Monday morning. “The donors have felt the chill of the polling … and it really just came down to where I’m not going to have sufficient resources to get us to the finish line.”

The former two-term state controller did not immediately endorse another candidate and said she would take a few days to assess the field before making an announcement.

The race was upended earlier this month when then-Rep. Eric Swalwell, among the leading Democrats in the race, was accused of sexual assault and other misconduct. The East Bay Democrat, who is facing multiple criminal investigations, promptly ended his gubernatorial bid and resigned from Congress.

Yee, 68, was well regarded by Democrats during her tenure in Sacramento. And she highlighted her no-drama persona on Thursday.

“California — had enough chaos, fear and horrendous political scandals? Ready for calm, cool, collected change? Some may consider that boring. But that’s the point. We need Boring Betty,” Yee posted on the social media site X. “No crisis. No circus. Just competent, drama-free leadership you can trust. #BoringisBetter”

But she never had the financial resources to aggressively compete in a state with many of the most expensive media markets in the nation.

Yee reported raising nearly $583,000 for her gubernatorial bid in 2025, according to campaign fundraising reports filed with the California secretary of state’s office. Yee’s announcement that she is dropping out of the race came days before the latest financial disclosures will be publicly reported.

Despite being elected to the state Board of Equalization twice and as state controller twice, Yee was not widely known by most Californians. She never cracked double digits in gubernatorial polls.

Her name will still appear on the ballot. She was among the candidates who rebuffed state Democratic Party leaders’ request earlier this year to reconsider their viability amid fears that the party could be shut out of the November general election because of the state’s unique primary system. The top two vote-getters in the June primary will move on to to the November general election, regardless of party affiliation.

Though California’s electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, the makeup of the gubernatorial field makes it statistically possible for Republicans to win the top two spots if Democratic voters splinter among their party’s candidates. Yee said fear of that scenario playing out “kind of took over” the gubernatorial race.

“Was it possible? Yes. Was it plausible? No, we’re in California. That was not going to happen,” she said, adding that the top-two primary system should be done away with.

Still, Yee was beloved by Democratic Party activists, and previously served as the party’s vice chair.

No Democratic candidate reached the necessary threshold to win the party’s official endorsement at its February convention, but Yee came in second with support from 17% of delegates despite calls for her to drop out of the race.

“Every poll shows that this race is wide open, and I know this party,” she said in an interview at the convention. “Frankly, I’ve been in positions where it’s been a crowded field, and we work hard and candidates emerge.”

The gubernatorial primary will take place June 2, though voters will start receiving mail ballots in about two weeks.

Garret Anderson was a Hall of Fame-caliber major league baseball player who never made the Hall of Fame. Baseball is a numbers game, and GA didn’t have enough of them.

When he finished his career and was eligible for the vote in 2016, he got just one vote. That represented 0.2% of the total. It also meant that he wasn’t even on the ballot the next year.

So, when he died Friday, way too soon at age 53, it presented an interesting twist. Had he lived into his 80s or 90s, there would have been few still around to remember anything about him but statistics. Now, the memory of his underrated greatness remains. What he did and how he did it is still in the frontal lobe of those who watched and those who wrote and broadcast about him.

He was the quiet man who played for various versions of the Angels for 15 seasons — the California Angels, the Anaheim Angels and the Los Angeles Angels. Right there, you have a Hall of Fame problem. A team struggling so hard to find its own identity does not attract the deep and passionate interest of the bulk of the writers/voters who live in time zones whose bed time is the same as game time in Anaheim.

It should have mattered that GA delivered the most important hit in Angels’ history, the game-winner in the 2002 World Series. It was Game 7, it was at Angel Stadium and the opponent was the San Francisco Giants, who had superstar slugger Barry Bonds and his line drives that created dents in outfield fences, except when they flew over them, which was often.

Anderson came to the plate in the third inning. The bases were loaded and Anderson took a shoulder-high fastball, slapped it down the right-field line and three runs came home. The Angels won 4-1 and haven’t come close to a World Series title, much less a World Series, since then. That at least got Anderson into the Angels Hall of Fame in 2016.

Mike Scioscia was the manager then and the most effective the team has had. He is the one who, Saturday, called Anderson’s Game 7 hit the greatest in team history.

“I remember looking out there when he went to the plate with the bases loaded,” Scioscia said, “and thinking he is exactly the guy I want there right now.”

Scioscia called Anderson’s death “a punch in the gut.” He said the player everybody called GA, didn’t have to be managed. “He was a resource for me,” Scioscia said. “He had an incredible inner drive. He was one of the most talented players I have been around. I’d call him a superstar.”

Scioscia, reminded that his “superstar” didn’t make baseball’s Hall of Fame, said, “Sometimes, great players slip through the cracks.”

Anderson’s not-quite-Hall-of-Fame performances included three All-Star game appearances. He was the game’s MVP in 2003 and also won the home run derby that year. He beat out Albert Pujols, then of the Cardinals. His career batting average was .293, he hit 287 home runs and had 1,365 runs batted in. He went to the plate to hit, not to watch. He never drew more than 38 walks in a season and never struck out more than 100 times.

Yet the statistic he felt gave him the best chance for the Hall of Fame was number of hits. Getting 3,000 hits would make him almost an automatic choice. He ended with 2,529, and near the end of his career with the Angels, he sat down with a reporter to discuss just that, plus one other thing.

Garret Anderson, left, talks with Jackie Autry, widow of Angels team owner Gene Autry, as he is inducted into the Angels Hall of Fame on Aug. 20, 2016.

(Reed Saxon / Associated Press)

It was uncharacteristic for Anderson to have this sort of conversation with anybody outside of his teammates, or maybe his family. It was lunch at Zov’s in Tustin and the question was how this voting system works and could maybe 200 more hits get him in. Could 2,750 do it? He wasn’t a big ego guy by any stretch of the imagination, but the Hall of Fame seemed to be dangling there and any baseball player who could see that for himself in the distance had to be intrigued.

There was no discussion of the intangibles, no consideration of the Angels being the Angels and what effect that will always have. Do voters even look much at other stats, such as his 24 walks and 35 home runs in the same season? The reporter wasn’t a great help. He wasn’t even a voter. Anderson wasn’t really stressed out over the Hall of Fame premise, just kind of fascinated. The reporter was probably more encouraging than realistic. Zov’s food was good, the company great.

Eventually, Anderson got to the second issue that had prompted the lunch: How to deal with Times columnist TJ Simers. He asked because the reporter was once Simers’ boss. Simers tended to probe and kid and seek to stir up things, but Anderson also recognized that he could be highly accurate, perceptive and even fun. Anderson, as a team star, was bracing for frequent visits. How should he handle it?

The answer was simple: Don’t lie to him. Don’t hide from him. If he is being a jerk, tell him so. He will accept that. If he is wrong, tell him that and tell him how. If he insults you, insult him back. He loves that.

Tim Mead, former director of public relations, when asked for his thoughts on Anderson, said that his perspective or quotes would not be as telling or as meaningful as simply watching the tape of Anderson’s three-run double that won the 2002 World Series for the Angels.

“Just watch it, just watch his reaction when he gets to second base,” Mead said Saturday.

And so we did. Anderson slaps his hit down the right field line, just fair. Angel Stadium goes crazy. Anderson stops at second base, claps his hands four times, then stands there quietly. Little emotion. Little hoopla. No contortions for “SportsCenter.” He has done his job. He has done what was expected of him. There are six more innings left. Let’s celebrate when it is truly over.

That was Garret Anderson, GA to his friends, a Hall of Fame player in all the ways that numbers don’t show.

PHOENIX — The top election official in Arizona’s most populous county will get more authority in running elections after a judge sided with his office in a prolonged legal fight with the local board that shares responsibility for overseeing the vote.

The decision could have broad implications in one of the nation’s most prominent battleground states, which will have several high-profile races this fall. Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, has been roiled by election conspiracy theorists ever since President Trump lost the state to Democrat Joe Biden during his bid for reelection in 2020.

Justin Heap, the Republican recorder in Maricopa County, sued the predominantly Republican county board of supervisors last summer, alleging it had illegally taken control of certain aspects of election administration. Heap claimed the board transferred funding, IT staff and some key functions — including management of ballot drop boxes and establishing early voting sites — away from his office through an agreement negotiated with his predecessor, whom he had recently defeated in a GOP primary.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney mostly sided with Heap’s office in his ruling, which was filed Thursday but appeared on the public docket Friday. The board of supervisors “acted unlawfully and exceeded its statutory authority by seizing the Recorder’s personnel, systems and equipment and refusing to return them” to the recorder, he wrote.

Blaney also ruled that the recorder’s office is responsible for overseeing in-person early voting, among other duties, while the board is responsible for other operations, such as selecting election day voting locations, supplying polling locations and hiring poll workers.

“The Board’s assertion of plenary authority over election administration through its general supervisory powers is inconsistent with Arizona law,” the judge wrote.

Board Chairwoman Kate Brophy McGee said the board will consider an appeal.

“I disagree with other portions of the ruling, and I will explore all options with the Board of Supervisors, including an expeditious appeal,” McGee, a Republican, said in a statement. “From day one, the Board of Supervisors has provided Recorder Heap the resources and staffing needed to fulfill his statutory duties. We will continue to do so because voters always come first.”

In a statement, Heap praised the ruling as a “clear and decisive victory for the rule of law and for the voters of Maricopa County.”

“The court confirmed that the Board cannot override state law, use funding as leverage, or take control of election duties assigned to the Recorder,” Heap said. “This ruling restores both the authority and the resources necessary for my office to do its job.”

Heap, a former Republican state lawmaker, was elected in 2024 after unseating incumbent Stephen Richer in the GOP primary and defeating a Democratic candidate in the general election. In the past, Heap has stopped short of repeating false claims that the 2020 and 2022 elections were stolen but has said voters don’t trust the state’s voting system and that it’s poorly run.

False claims of fraud since the 2020 presidential election led to threats of violence against Richer and others in the Maricopa County elections office. Richer blamed Heap for contributing to an atmosphere of distrust and vitriol directed toward the office.

“He catered to the really ugly stuff that the people in that office had to live through,” Richer said of Heap, in an interview last month. “And he allied with people who were very much in the eye of the storm in terms of creating it.”

Once he took office, Heap terminated a previous agreement that was reached between Richer and the board that had revised how election operations were divided between the two offices. Heap filed his lawsuit with the backing of America First Legal, a conservative public interest group founded by Stephen Miller, now deputy chief of staff in the White House.

Kelety writes for the Associated Press.

Ruling is latest loss for Trump administration, which has sought access to state voter data ahead of the US midterms.

A federal judge in the United States has dismissed a Department of Justice lawsuit seeking to access voter data from Rhode Island.

The decision on Friday was the latest loss for the administration of President Donald Trump, which has sought to access voter data in dozens of states across the country.

In the ruling, US District Court Judge Mary McElroy sided with election officials and civil rights groups, writing that the Justice Department does not have the authority “to conduct the kind of fishing expedition it seeks here”.

Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore praised the ruling in a statement afterwards.

“The executive branch seems to have no problem taking actions that are clear Constitutional overreaches, regularly meddling in responsibilities that are the rights of the states,” Amore wrote.

“But the power of our democratic republic, built on three, coequal branches of government, is clearer than ever before.”

The Justice Department has sued at least 30 states for their voter information, maintaining it needs the information to secure election security. State officials have said that turning over the data raises an array of privacy concerns.

Under the US Constitution, state officials administer elections. Only Congress can pass laws related to how states oversee voting.

But Trump has sought to transform election administration, claiming that voting has been marred by widespread fraud.

In particular, Trump has continued to maintain that the 2020 election, in which he lost to former President Joe Biden, was “stolen”.

No evidence has ever been put forward to support the claims.

Federal judges have rejected attempts in California, Massachusetts, Michigan and Oregon to force the states to hand over voter files to the federal government. At least 12 states, however, have willingly provided or pledged to provide voter information to the Trump administration.

The push for voter information is one of several actions that have raised concerns over how the Trump administration will approach the midterm elections in November, which will decide the makeup of the US Congress.

He is currently calling on Republicans to pass the so-called SAVE America Act, a bill that would create higher documentation standards for voters to prove their citizenship when registering to vote and casting ballots.

The majority of Republican lawmakers have embraced Trump’s claim that the law is needed to prevent non-citizens from registering to vote, despite studies showing that instances of voter fraud are glancingly rare.

Critics say the measure would risk disenfranchising millions of voters, particularly those who have legally changed their names, which is a common practice in US marriages.

WASHINGTON — President Trump had something urgent to address while flying back to Washington from his Mar-a-Lago estate on a recent Sunday.

It wasn’t the Iran war, nor the partial government shutdown over Department of Homeland Security funding. He was focused on a monumental issue of a different kind, hoisting artist renderings of the $400-million White House ballroom he’s building, complete with hand-carved “top-of-the-line” Corinthian columns.

“I’m so busy that I don’t have time to do this. I’m fighting wars and other things,” Trump said before extensively detailing plans for “the greatest ballroom anywhere in the world.”

His divided attention has become a Democratic point of attack and a concern for some Republicans who worry he’s not spending enough time on issues that voters care most about ahead of November’s midterm races.

The contrast was on full display Thursday, when, as Trump flew to Las Vegas to discuss tax cuts for Americans earning tips, his administration was pushing ahead with another of his splashy projects: Plans to build a 250-foot Triumphal Arch near the Lincoln Memorial replete with a Lady Liberty-like statue and a pair of golden eagles.

The president’s ability to speak to the concerns of working people has always seemed incongruous with his biography as a billionaire real estate developer. Yet his populist policies and emphasis on the economy during his 2024 campaign helped catapult him back to the White House.

Republican strategist Rick Tyler noted that, when Trump first ran for president in 2016, his wealth was a selling point.

“While other people, like Mitt Romney, played down how rich he was, Trump was giving free helicopter rides at the Iowa State Fair,” Tyler said. “People loved it.”

Still, Trump’s preoccupation with some of the gilded trappings of the presidency, as more Americans worry about bills, has drawn accusations that he’s a modern-day Marie Antoinette.

“ ‘Fighting wars’ and surging gas prices, yet Trump has time to brag about his billionaire backed ballroom,” Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) responded on X to Trump’s Air Force One presentation.

Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential hopeful, has been more direct in comparing Trump to the last queen before the French Revolution, who has come to embody extravagant opulence — even posting an AI-generated image of Trump’s face on her body on social media.

“TRUMP ‘MARIE ANTOINETTE’ SAYS, ‘NO HEALTH CARE FOR YOU PEASANTS, BUT A BALLROOM FOR THE QUEEN!’” Newsom wrote in October 2025, at the start of last fall’s 43-day government shutdown.

White House says Trump’s success benefits all Americans

Asked about opponents invoking Marie Antoinette, White House spokesman Davis Ingle said Trump “is going to go down in history as the most successful and consequential president in our lifetime.”

“His successes on behalf of the American people will be imprinted upon the fabric of America and will be felt by every other White House that comes after him,” Ingle said in a statement.

The president faced similar critiques during his first term. But lately he’s been unabashed about accusations he’s disconnected from Americans’ worries about high costs, which could leave Republicans with an uphill battle to retain control of Congress.

Republicans have been loath to question Trump, though notably there has been little criticism of a federal judge’s ruling that work on the project must stop until it has congressional approval. The GOP-controlled House and Senate also haven’t prioritized legislation to move the ballroom project forward.

“I’m not much into architecture,” Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said last fall.

About two-thirds of Americans said Trump is “out of touch” with the concerns of most people in the United States today, according to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll from February, though the same percentage said the same about the Democratic Party.

Presidents are usually removed from voters, separated by layers of security and surrounded by adoring subordinates. In her book “Why Presidents Fail and How They Can Succeed Again,” Elaine Kamarck argues that presidents get too focused on their own political narratives rather than the public’s concerns. Yet, when it comes to Trump, “All of this stuff is frankly unique to him.”

She pointed to the ballroom as well as Trump’s other White House renovations, soon adding his signature to paper currency and renaming the Kennedy Center after himself.

“It’s a reflection, I think, of his own background as a businessman and somebody who made his fortune selling his name,” said Kamarck, who worked in Bill Clinton’s White House.

While Trump focuses on the ballroom and other Washington projects, some public work projects in other parts of the country have languished.

Joe Meyer, the former mayor of Covington, Ky., spent years pushing for critical improvements to the Brent Spence Bridge connecting his town with Cincinnati, a project listed as a top federal priority dating back to Trump’s first administration.

Federal funds for improvements were approved under President Biden but held up by a Trump-ordered review. Work is finally set to begin later this year, though delays will likely limit design options and slow the project, Meyer said.

“The ballroom is Washington inside-baseball,” Meyer said. “The bridge is just a wreck. It’s frustration that we’ve been dealing with forever.”

A $100 tip and a golden tractor

Trumpeting new tax deductions for tips, Trump staged ordering McDonald’s to the Oval Office — which he has adorned with gold flourishes — and tipped the grandmother making the delivery $100. When she described large medical bills from her husband’s cancer treatments, Trump said she should bring him to an upcoming UFC fight on the White House lawn.

When hundreds of farmers were invited to the White House for an agricultural policy speech, they stood on the South Lawn beside a tractor that had been painted gold. It drizzled, but Trump stayed dry, addressing them from a covered second-floor balcony.

“You don’t mind rain,” the president told the farmers below.

He then flew to Miami for a conference of Saudi investors who, the president noted, were too rich to be impressed by U.S. families scrounging to save up $5,000.

“I know they’re looking like, ‘What the hell is $5,000?’ ” Trump joked. “Their shoes cost them more than $5,000.”

When asked in February, meanwhile, for his message to young people wanting to buy a home, Trump replied: “Save a little longer. Wait a little longer.”

Members of the Cabinet have also fed the perception that Trump’s promised “Golden Age” may not be arriving for everyone. Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. advised Americans to buy liver instead of beef.

“If you go and buy a steak, it’s still pretty expensive. But if you buy the cheaper cuts, it’s great meat. And it is very, very affordable. Or liver, or, you know, all these alternatives,” he told podcast host Joe Rogan.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said people could still afford meals consisting of “a piece of chicken, a piece of broccoli, corn tortilla and one other thing.”

Texas-based Republican consultant Brendan Steinhauser said he thinks that Trump “can kind of get away with” building a ballroom because voters have come to expect that from him as a brash dealmaker and businessman.

But Steinhauser said he worries that dramatic increases in gas prices and a potentially weakening economy could resonate with voters. Ahead of the midterms, Steinhauser said, Democrats could score points “trying to make it more about Trump and his oligarch friends.”

Price and Weissert write for the Associated Press. AP writers Linley Sanders in Washington and Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Eric Swalwell is out — of the California gubernatorial race and Congress, spending time with family, as they say, after allegations of rape and sexual misconduct. That could be considered good news for the slew of Democrats who remain in the running, and even the two Republicans currently polling near the top.

But this muddled campaign season has clearly failed to capture voters’ imagination. This despite a sex scandal, a billionaire spending his millions, a dark horse spending tech-bro millions, a debate where the invitations were so controversial the event was canceled and a sheriff seizing ballots in a failed MAGA-pandering stunt. (President Trump ended up backing his opponent.)

After all that, you’d think Californians would care, at least in a spectacle sort of way.

But they don’t. At least not yet.

So is “undecided” going to remain the leader in the race until voters are forced to fill in their ballots? Even Republicans, with the Trump-endorsed Steve Hilton and Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco as their main choices, can’t make up their minds.

Times columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak ponder why the race is such a hot mess, who benefits from the Swalwell implosion, whether anyone will ever get excited about any of these candidates — and what all that means for the future of California.

Chabria: We are less than 50 days out from the primary on June 2 and somehow this race remains both boring and unpredictable.

There’s lots of talk about whether the two remaining top Democratic candidates, former Rep. Katie Porter and billionaire investor Tom Steyer, will scoop up Swalwell’s supporters — or if a second-tier contender such as San José Mayor Matt Mahan, former state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra or ex-L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa may rise from the near-dead with a surprise surge.

With such a short amount of time and candidates who have already proved their lack of charisma, I’m worried that what happens next really comes down to money — which Steyer and Mahan have. Mahan’s tech-industry backers are already said to be lining up millions of dollars in ad buys to blitz his name and image on our consciousness in these final days, like a breakfast cereal we didn’t know we wanted to buy.

Ditto Steyer, though he’s got a much higher profile and backing from several key unions.

Do you think that money is going to rule the finish line in this one, or do any of the other candidates have a shot through sheer determination?

Barabak: Let’s be real.

If Tom Steyer was some schmo named Tom Steinway without a vast fortune buoying his political ambitions, he wouldn’t be remotely in the running, much less talked about as one of the putative front-runners. As it is, Steyer has burned through the equivalent of a small country’s GDP and he’s still not cracking 15% in polls.

That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement, notwithstanding all those he’s managed to leverage through his wealth.

California has a long history of rejecting moneybag candidates. In fact, not one has ever been elected governor. That said, we’ve never seen a contest like this one — and that was before Swalwell’s candidacy went up in salacious smoke.

The closest parallel — absent that above-referenced self-immolation — was in 1998. Voters weren’t crazy about the two leading candidates, including a rich guy blasting them with a firehose of TV advertising, so they opted for the colorless guy running far back in the pack. (And yes, dear reader, Gray Davis was eventually recalled, but that came well after the fact.)

There’s a saying in Iowa, around its presidential caucuses. The secret is to organize, organize, organize and then get hot at the end. California, obviously, is not the kind of state you win by holding a million and one kaffeeklatsches. But the principle — lay the groundwork, then count on timing and good fortune — could apply here.

Who might that be? Mahan’s sudden cash gusher can’t hurt. But your guess is as good as mine.

Chabria: The thing about organizing is that for Democrats, much of that work is done by labor unions. They provide the people, the phone banks, the door knockers. The California Labor Federation this time around endorsed basically everybody (Swalwell, Steyer, Villaraigosa and Porter), giving none of the Democratic candidates an advantage.

In a rare move, the California Labor Federation and Service Employees International Union California pulled their endorsement of Swalwell, as have other unions after these allegations came out. But labor remains split among the other candidates (though Steyer seems to be gaining unions’ affections), a real problem when it comes to that kind of organizing.

It’s that division of real people power that makes me worry money will have even more influence this time around.

But also, there is the unknown. There’s chatter online that a famous or strong contender (Kamala? A celebrity?) could stage a last-minute write-in campaign. Although state law no longer allows a write-in for the general election, there’s a tiny window left for one in the primary. What do you think? Could someone new swoop in and excite the voters enough to go rogue?

Barabak: Well, there’s Steve Cloobeck.

Who, you’re probably asking?

He’s a rich real estate developer who quit the race in November after an unsung yearlong campaign. Upon exiting, he enthusiastically endorsed his close friend, Eric Swalwell.

Speaking with our colleague Seema Mehta, Cloobeck said he wished the Legislature would amend the state Constitution so he could file to reenter the governor’s race — a delusion right up there alongside President Trump comparing himself to Jesus.

Seriously, political gossips abhor a vacuum, so they fill it with all sorts of fantastical scenarios of candidates riding in on white horses and rescuing us from … what exactly?

I’ve been the rare voice arguing this governor’s race is not at all boring. Boring would have been Kamala Harris holding a commanding lead for the Democratic nomination and people speculating whether anyone could stop her. While this bunch of candidates won’t send laser light dancing across the darkened sky, there are plenty of quite capable people still in the running, unless you’re looking for someone to entertain and/or offer California four years of distraction and diversion.

And we’ve seen what putting a reality-TV star in the White House has gotten us.

Chabria: At the end of the day, or at least election day, this is a question of whom we trust with the future of California. Ultimately, that’s why this race is a hot mess — none of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, have offered a vision inspiring enough to make voters want to trust them with the next four or eight years.

To me, that’s the real failure here. I don’t think voters would mind boring at all, if it was dolled up with credibility and competence.

I agree with you that we don’t need another reality star in any elected office. And more than one of these candidates has the skills to run the state. But in an era of deceit, arrogance and flashy incompetence, voters do want someone they feel they can trust.

So far, none of the candidates have delivered that sense of security, that they are campaigning as a public servant — instead of the thirsty contender hoping for a rose.

So either someone steps up and earns the rose, or it goes to the top-two least-worst. The June primary is holding on to her secrets for now.

Barabak: You know me; always one to look on the bright side!

If you’re a Republican, the bright side is the long shot, but not impossible, prospect of Bianco and Hilton nabbing both spots on June 2. That would mean one of the two lands in the governor’s office in January, notwithstanding California’s overwhelmingly Democratic leaning.

For an unaffiliated voter and political noncombatant like me, a Californian who deeply cares about my home state, the bright side is this: At least people are finally paying attention to the governor’s race.

So dive in! You’ve got just under seven weeks to make up your mind.

WASHINGTON — Most Americans still think their taxes are too high, according to recent polls, even after last year’s tax law fulfilled several of President Trump’s tax-related campaign promises.

In fact, a new Fox News poll indicates people are more upset about taxes than they were last year. The findings from the survey, which was conducted in late March, are another sign that Americans are on edge about their personal finances as the U.S. experiences a spike in inflation and sluggish economic growth. Other polling finds that frustration goes beyond personal tax obligations, with many believing that wealthy people and corporations are not paying their fair share, while others worry about government waste.

The surveys come after Trump and Republicans passed a massive tax and spending cut bill last year. The legislation enacted a range of tax breaks, including a boosted child tax credit and new tax deductions for tips and overtime. Tax refunds are up this season, and many households are expected to see more income from the Republicans’ tax legislation, but the Congressional Budget Office estimated it will ultimately give the largest benefits to the richest Americans.

Republicans have touted the law as evidence that they are making life more affordable for working families. But polling shows that many Americans may not be feeling the benefits, especially as their tax refunds get eaten up by higher prices.

Most say taxes are too high

About 7 in 10 registered voters say the taxes they pay are “too high,” according to the Fox News poll. That’s up from about 6 in 10 last year. The poll shows heightened concern among very liberal voters and Democratic men, but there has also been a sizable increase among groups that Republicans want to court ahead of the midterm elections, such as moderates, rural voters and white voters without a college degree.

Discontent about taxes has been rising for the past few years. Recent polling from Gallup, conducted in March, found about 6 in 10 U.S. adults say the amount of federal income tax they have to pay is “too high,” a finding that’s been largely consistent in the annual poll since 2023. That’s approaching the level of unhappiness found in Gallup’s polling from the 1980s through the 1990s, before President George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Now, about half of Democrats and about 6 in 10 Republicans say their federal income taxes are too high. Republicans tend to view their tax bill more negatively than Democrats, but Gallup’s polling shows that this gap often shrinks when a Republican is president.

Many believe the rich aren’t paying enough in taxes

Most Americans are troubled by the belief that some wealthy people and corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in January. About 6 in 10 Americans said each of those notions bothers them “a lot,” a measure that is largely unchanged in recent years.

By contrast, only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults in that poll said the amount they personally pay in taxes bothers them a lot.

About 8 in 10 Democrats are bothered “a lot” by the feeling that some corporations and rich people aren’t paying their fair share, the Pew survey found, compared to about 4 in 10 Republicans. Government spending is a bigger issue for Republicans, according to the Fox News poll, which found that 75% of registered voters — and a similar share of Republican voters — say “almost all” or “a great deal” of government funding is wasteful and inefficient.

That points to a perception problem for many Americans. Even if their own tax bill is manageable, the idea that the wealthy are underpaying — or that the government is wasting their dollars — bothers many. About half of Americans, 49%, in the Gallup poll say the income tax they will pay this year is “not fair,” which is in line with the record high from 2023.

Broad unhappiness with Trump’s tax approach

Americans’ tax frustration was rising before Trump re-entered the White House, but it’s still a problem for the president’s party — especially if Americans are not feeling the relief that he promised.

The Fox News poll found that about 6 in 10 registered voters, 64%, say they disapprove of how Trump is handling taxes, up from 53% last April. Disapproval has risen most sharply among independents, but also among Democrats and Republicans.

This aligns with a broader feeling that Trump isn’t doing enough to address inflation. Most Americans said Trump had hurt the cost of living “a lot” or “a little” in his second term, according to an AP-NORC poll conducted in January. Roughly 9 in 10 Democrats and about 6 in 10 independents said Trump has had a negative impact on the cost of living.

Less than half of Republicans, 43%, said Trump had helped the cost of living, while 33% said he hadn’t made a difference and only 23% said he’d helped.

Sanders writes for the Associated Press. The Fox News poll was conducted among 1,001 registered voters from March 20-23. The Gallup poll was conducted among 1,000 U.S. adults from March 2-18. The Pew Research Center poll was conducted among 8,512 U.S. adults from Jan. 20-26. The AP-NORC Poll was conducted among 1,203 U.S. adults from Jan 8-11.

SAN DIEGO — While their spring convention was held beneath mostly sunny San Diego skies, delegates and leaders of the California Republican party basked in a different sort of glow over the weekend as the campaign for a leading Democratic candidate for governor imploded because of allegations of sexual assault and misconduct.

The party did not endorse a candidate for governor on Sunday because neither of the top Republicans — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News host Steve Hilton — received the support of 60% of delegates. Bianco won 49% while Hilton had 44%; 7% of delegates voted not to endorse in the race.

“We’re very happy,” Bianco said after the vote. “We got the popular vote here, right? Ultimately, our goal is to win California, and you win California with the popular vote … Californians are looking for a leader. Californians are looking for integrity. Californians are looking for honesty. And they want someone that they know is going to be looking out for them, working for them, and that’s why I won this vote.”

Hilton also said he was pleased by his showing.

“Chad came into this convention thinking he had it in the bag,” Hilton said. “I think we made a lot of progress this week and I think the endorsement of President Trump is the one that’s gonna be decisive in the primary.”

The convention took place as a former staff member for Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) accused him of forcing himself on her twice when she was too intoxicated to consent, according to reports published by the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN. Three other women also accused Swalwell of misconduct that included sending and soliciting explicit photos and messages.

Swalwell has not withdrawn from the race, but within hours of the allegations top supporters withdrew endorsements of the East Bay Area congressman, including Sen. Adam Schiff, campaign co-chairs Reps. Jimmy Gomez and Adam Gray, and prominent labor unions including the California Teachers Assn.

The collapse of Swalwell’s campaign brought a surge of energy to leaders and hundreds of die-hard members of a state Republican Party that holds a superminority in the state Legislature and no statewide elected offices. The news broke Friday, just as the party convention was getting underway at the bayside Sheraton San Diego Resort and hours before the Artemis II crew splashed down off the nearby coast.

Sean Spicer, a former press secretary during President Trump’s first term who is promoting a new book, joked during a Saturday brunch panel about landing in San Diego just in time to see “the fall.”

“Sorry, I was talking about Swalwell,” he said to laughter. “It was also cool to see Artemis come back down.”

Republicans have not won a statewide election since 2006 and some hoped Swalwell’s controversy would fuel voters already beleaguered by the cost of living to consider supporting GOP candidates this year.

“Quite frankly, Californians are, by and large, looking for viable alternatives. They’re looking towards the California Republican Party,” Chairwoman Corrin Rankin told reporters.

Republicans running to succeed Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom shared similar visions during five-minute speeches at a Saturday afternoon candidate forum.

“We meet here today, full of energy and hope and optimism, with a spring in our step on this beautiful spring day. Why? Because every party has its season, and for the California Democrats, the leaves are cascading from the trees,” Hilton told delegates.

Hilton, who served as a top political advisor to U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, argued that 16 years of Democratic rule has led to dysfunction, chaos and scandal that alarmed voters in the overwhelmingly blue state even before the Swalwell scandal.

“And now, it’s been a couple of hours, so I think we’re due for another Eric Swalwell intern eruption,” he said.

Hilton touted Trump’s endorsement, describing it as a “tremendous asset for us, the energy, the resources, the precious gift of having the boost that makes the biggest difference in a midterm year turnout.”

Bianco emphasized his decades serving in law enforcement in the state, one of his main selling points to Californians concerned about liberal criminal justice policies of past Democratic administrations.

“I have spent every day serving California residents, making our lives better and safer. I have fought for you, and I have bled for you,” Bianco said.

Bianco refuted Hilton’s allegations that he coddled undocumented immigrants, sympathized with Black Lives Matter protesters and threatened county residents with punishment if they did not abide by mask mandates during the pandemic. He said he was the first law-enforcement official in the nation to defy a lockdown order after the pandemic. Bianco said that while he prayed with protesters in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, he also “forcefully” expelled “rioters and domestic terrorists” from his county.

Bianco also obliquely referred to attacks Hilton has lobbed against the sheriff on the campaign trail.

“This was never supposed to be about a dishonest smear campaign and bullseyes,” Bianco said, referring to a mailer Hilton’s campaign sent to voters that pictured Bianco’s head with circles around it that resemble a shooting target.

As Bianco walked through the bayfront convention hotel after the forum, he was swarmed by supporters chanting his name.

Saturday night, Bianco hosted a western-saloon themed party for delegates. Attendees wearing cowboy hats line danced, petted fluffy white calves and posed for pictures in front of an inflated cactus.

A Hilton-hosted party took on the feel of a candidate forum as he and Republican allies running for other statewide offices gave another round of speeches, often punctuated by shushing attendees who chattered in the back of the room.

Under California’s top-two primary system, the two leading candidates advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation. For weeks, Hilton and Bianco have led polls while eight prominent Democrats including Swalwell split the support of liberal voters, stoking anxiety among Democrats that the party could end up shut out of the November election.

The chances of that happening diminished with Swalwell’s fall from grace and Trump’s endorsement of Hilton, political experts said, but those in the conservative wing of California politics celebrated the apparent downfall of the once-powerful Democrat.

Swalwell is “in denial right now, but once he realizes he doesn’t have any friends left and his campaign team is leaving him, people are laughing at him in the restaurant, I think, and I hope for his sake, he has enough self-awareness that he’ll quietly drop out and go to the south coast of France and put on a wig,” said Republican National committeeman Shawn Steel.

One of the convention’s celebrated speakers, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took shots at other California Democrats during a Saturday evening banquet, describing Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass as “the Democrats’ national ambassador for disaster management” and Newsom as a contender for “Texas Realtor of the year, because no person in human history has sold more homes in the state of Texas.”

“Look, as a Texan, I gotta say, just isn’t fair. [You have] an economy that has been a monstrous engine driving America forward for decades, and yet you were cursed with idiot politicians,” Cruz said.

While Hilton‘s and Bianco’s campaigns have sparred about their respective records, the candidates largely avoided direct confrontation until a debate earlier this month in Rancho Mirage. The two GOP candidates tore into each other about issues such as immigration, their credentials and their honesty.

Delegates also sparred about Bianco and Hilton’s records in the halls of the convention.

Shiva Bagheri, a Bianco supporter from Beverly Hills, said that Hilton’s political positions are not constitutional.

“Steve said that anybody that makes under $100,000 shouldn’t pay [income] taxes,” said Bagheri, 52. “That’s against the 14th Amendment. I’m a constitutionalist.” She said she preferred Bianco’s plan to cut income taxes for everyone to avoid class warfare.

Celeste Greig, a Hilton supporter from Northridge, initially supported Bianco and donated to his campaign. But she grew troubled after hearing about Bianco’s comments about immigration, seeing images of the sheriff taking a knee alongside BLM protesters and learning of what she believes was an unlawful arrest of a person outside of President Trump’s 2024 rally in the Coachella Valley.

Some Republicans longed for a return to a bygone era when state lawmakers regularly worked across the aisle. State Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) described teaming up with Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla when they served in the Legislature, adding that he still considers Padilla, now the state’s senior U.S. senator, a friend.

“We’re in a divided era right now,” Strickland said. “If we actually pick up a few more seats, I think it will give more comfort to some of those moderate Democrats to come over and work with us.”

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice seeking Massachusetts’ state voter rolls, marking the latest setback in a wide-ranging effort by the Trump administration to collect detailed data on the nation’s voters.

The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Leo Sorokin marks at least the fifth time a judge has rejected similar attempts by the Justice Department. Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said the U.S. attorney general’s office did not take the necessary steps required to access voter rolls, as outlined in federal law.

“Put simply, the statute requires a statement of why the Attorney General demands production of the requested records,” Sorokin wrote. That statement has to be factual, “not just a conceivable or possible basis.”

In an emailed response, the Justice Department said it “does not comment on ongoing litigation.”

It has said it’s seeking the voter data as part of an effort to ensure election security, but Democratic and Republican officials in several states have refused, saying the demand violates state and federal privacy laws. Some have raised concerns that federal officials will use the sensitive data for other purposes, such as searching for potential noncitizens.

During a hearing last month in Rhode Island, a Justice Department attorney told a federal judge that the department was seeking unredacted voter roll information so it could be shared with the Department of Homeland Security to check citizenship status. Homeland Security over the past year has beefed up the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, program, for just this purpose.

“Our intention is to run this against the DHS SAVE database,” Department of Justice attorney Eric Neff told U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy during a March 26 hearing challenging the federal government’s authority to access the voter data.

The Justice Department has sued at least 30 states and the District of Columbia seeking to force release of the data, which includes dates of birth, addresses, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.

At least 12 states have either provided or promised to provide their detailed voter registration lists to the department, according to the Brennan Center: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.

In the Massachusetts case, the the judge found that the Justice Department failed to follow the requirements for demanding the voter rolls set by a 1960 civil rights law.

That law, enacted as part of an effort to end racial discrimination in elections, says state voter records must be made available for inspection by the U.S. attorney general if the office includes a statement outlining why the information is being demanded and how it will be used.

The department’s letter demanding Massachusetts’ voter data made no reference to the Civil Rights Act and didn’t cite any concerns about the way Massachusetts complied with federal voting laws, the judge said. Most importantly, it didn’t include any factual basis for the demand, Sorokin wrote.

In court documents, the Justice Department said it was demanding the data to check for “Massachusetts’ possible lack of compliance” with federal voter registration list requirements. It also said the Civil Rights Act was designed to be an investigatory tool to identify federal election law violations and argued that the U.S. attorney general can’t be required to prove a violation before seeking evidence of one.

“These arguments miss the point,” Sorokin wrote.

Massachusetts Atty. Gen. Andrea Joy Campbell called the ruling a decisive win for voters and the rule of law.

“The privacy of our voters is not up for negotiation, and I will continue to defend the integrity and security of our elections from the Trump Administration’s cruel and harmful agenda,” she said in a news release.

Four federal judges in other states have dismissed similar lawsuits from the Department of Justice.

A federal judge in Michigan found the laws cited by the Justice Department do not require the disclosure of the voter records sought by the federal government. A federal judge in California said the administration “may not unilaterally usurp the authority over elections,” which the Constitution gives to the states and Congress. A federal judge in Oregon said the federal government was not entitled to unredacted voter registration lists containing sensitive data.

A federal judge in Georgia dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit because he found it had been filed in the wrong city. The federal government then refiled the lawsuit in the city specified by the judge; that case is ongoing.

The Justice Department has appealed the Oregon, California and Michigan dismissals.

Boone writes for the Associated Press. Boone reported from Boise, Idaho. AP writer Kimberlee Kruesi in Providence, R.I., contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — As Democratic leaders in California challenge President Trump’s latest effort to restrict the use of mail-in ballots, they also must grapple with a troubling development in the last election.

A significant number of mail-in ballots arrived too late to be counted in the Nov. 4 special election for Proposition 50, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s successful measure to reconfigure the state’s congressional districts, according to state data.

Ballots came in late at an average rate four times higher than that of the 2024 election, with rural counties seeing some of the biggest increases, according to a Times review.

“Something changed,” said Melvin E. Levey, who heads the Merced County Registrar of Voters. “We don’t like seeing late ballots and if someone has made the effort to vote, we want to count it.”

Merced saw almost a sevenfold increase in late-arriving mail ballots in the November election compared with the year before.

Vote-by-mail ballots are considered late if they are not postmarked on or ahead of election day or do not arrive within seven days of election day.

The issue appears to be linked to the U.S. Postal Service, which last year reduced the number of trips to pick up mail at post offices in mostly rural areas. Election officials warned before Nov. 4 that the Postal Service changes could delay the postmarking of ballots and lead to votes not being counted.

During the Nov. 4 election in California, an average of 8 out of every 1,000 vote-by-mail ballots were rejected by counties because they arrived too late, according to Secretary of State data. In the 2024 general election, which included the presidential race, an average of 2 of every 1,000 vote-by-mail ballots were rejected for being late.

In Kern County, for example, 3,303 mail-in ballots — or 1.95% of returned mail-in ballots — were not counted in the 2025 special election because they arrived too late. In 2024, that number was 332 — or 0.14%. And in Riverside County, 5,831 ballots — or 0.95% of those mailed in — were deemed too late to count, more than double the number of late ballots rejected in 2024.

Postal Service spokesperson Cathy Purcell recommended that voters mail their ballot a week in advance of when it must be received by election officials to ensure it arrives on time.

“You should never be mailing your ballot on election day,” Purcell told The Times.

Before last’s year’s special election, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber issued a similar warning about the delays. Anyone dropping off their ballot at a post office on election day should get it postmarked at the counter, she said.

“We don’t want anyone to just toss it into the mailbox as we have been able to do in the past and have it counted,” she said. “The Postal Service has said that they may not be counted in certain areas.”

California voter data expert Paul Mitchell expressed astonishment about the Postal Service’s guidance.

“We’ve had six, eight years of elections where people were feeling confident about mailing in their ballot,” said Mitchell, vice president of the voter data firm Political Data Inc. “Now the USPS is saying they have to mail it in a week early.”

“That is a dramatic change that can disenfranchise voters who are just following the same pattern that they’ve used in prior elections,” he added.

Democrats have been defending the vote-by-mail system in the face of Republican attacks. Trump recently signed an executive order to impose federal restrictions on mail-in ballots and, without evidence, has long criticized mail-in ballots as a source of fraud and a factor in his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.

The Nov. 4 special election on Proposition 50 was the Democrats’ attempt to counter Trump’s push for Republican-led states, most notably Texas, to redraw their electoral maps to keep Democrats from gaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms and upending his agenda. The ballot measure overwhelmingly passed.

Nearly 89% of votes in the Nov. 4 election were vote-by-mail ballots, according to Weber’s office. In addition to Proposition 50, tax measures were also on the ballots in some counties.

Postal Service changes

About a month before the Nov. 4 election, Weber and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta held a news conference to encourage California voters to vote early because of service changes at the U.S. Postal Service.

Bonta told reporters that voters living 50 or more miles from six large mail processing centers in urban areas who mailed their ballots on election day would not have those ballots postmarked in time. The centers are in Los Angeles, Bell Gardens, San Diego, Santa Clarita, Richmond and West Sacramento, according to Bonta’s office.

The changes at the U.S. Postal Service are part of a 10-year plan that kicked off several years ago aimed at improving services and reducing costs at the independent federal agency.

In the 17 counties that are mostly or entirely within the 50-mile distance from the mail facilities, the average rate of late ballots doubled in the November 2025 election compared with the election the year before — from 2.5 per 1,000 ballots received in 2024 to 5.6 per 1,000 in 2025.

But in counties that are entirely or mostly outside of the 50-mile radius, the average rate of late ballots quadrupled — from 2 per 1,000 ballots received in 2024 to 9.3 per 1,000 in 2025, state election records show.

Similar complaints about late ballots because of the mail changes have been reported in other states, including in Snohomish County, Wash., according to the New York Times.

The U.S. Postal Services told the Times that there are “any number of factors” that may affect the timeliness of mail.

“The Postal Service has successfully delivered America’s election mail, and we are confident that we will do so again this year,” spokesperson Nikolaj Hagen said. “We rely on long-standing, robust and tested policies and procedures, which have proven successful in the secure and timely delivery of election mail.”

Hagen added that “adjustments to our transportation operations will result in some mailpieces not arriving at our originating processing facilities on the same day that they are mailed.”

Postmarks are generally applied at those processing facilities, Hagen said, so the postmark date may not reflect the date the mail was collected by a letter carrier, dropped off at a retail location, or placed in a collection box.

While the U.S. Postal Service uses postmarking as an internal tool to track the place and date the mail was accepted, outside entities also use the postmarks for their own purposes, including the Internal Revenue Service, which requires federal tax returns to be mailed by April 15.

Several U.S. senators, including Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), sent a letter in January to USPS Postmaster Gen. Dave Steiner warning that changes to postmarking will make it more difficult for people, particularly those in rural areas, to vote by mail and pay tax bills on time.

On Tuesday, Trump signed an executive order that seeks to put new federal controls on voting by mail in states, repeating his long-held but unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots are a source of widespread fraud in U.S. elections.

The order directs the U.S. Postal Service to take control of mail balloting by designing new envelopes with special bar codes that will allow the federal government to ensure that such ballots go out only to eligible voters.

States must follow the USPS process if they plan to use the federal mail system for sending or receiving ballots. They also must submit to the USPS lists of eligible voters in advance of such ballots passing through the mail system.

Separately, the Republican National Committee is challenging a Mississippi law that allows ballots that arrive up to five days after election day to be accepted and counted. The case was argued before the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court in March.

Times staff reporter Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

ATLANTA — The Georgia General Assembly ended its annual session early Friday without a plan for new equipment to overhaul the state’s voting system by a July deadline, plunging into doubt the future of elections in the political battleground.

The lawmakers’ failure to offer a solution after months of debate raises uncertainty about how Georgians will vote in November and leaves confusion that could end in the courts or a special legislative session.

“They’ve abdicated their responsibility,” Democratic state Rep. Saira Draper said of inaction by Republicans who control the legislature.

Currently, voters make their choices on Dominion Voting machines, which then print ballots with a QR code that scanners read to tally votes. Those machines have been repeatedly targeted by President Trump following his 2020 election loss, and Trump’s Georgia supporters responded by enacting a law in 2024 that bans using barcodes to count votes.

But state law still requires counties to use the machines. No money has been allocated to reprogram them, and lawmakers failed to agree on a replacement.

“We’ll have an unresolvable statutory conflict come July 1,” said House Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Victor Anderson, a Cornelia Republican who backed a proposal to keep using the machines in 2026 that Senate Republicans declined to consider.

House Republicans and Democrats backed Anderson’s plan, which would have required that Georgia choose a voting process that didn’t use QR codes by 2028. Election officials preferred that solution.

“The Senate has shown that they’re not responsible actors,” Draper said. She added that Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, a Trump-endorsed Republican running for governor, seemed more interested in keeping Trump’s backing than “doing right by Georgia voters.”

A spokesperson for Jones didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment early Friday.

Joseph Kirk, Bartow County election supervisor and president of the Georgia Association of Voter Registration and Election Officials, said he’ll look to the secretary of state for guidance and assumes a judge will rule to instruct election officials how to proceed.

“This is uncharted territory,” he said.

Robert Sinners, a spokesperson for Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who is also running for governor, said officials are “ready to follow the law and follow the Constitution.”

Republican House Speaker Jon Burns told reporters that his chamber was seeking to minimize changes this year.

“You can’t change horses in the middle of the stream,” Burns said.

Burns said he would meet with Gov. Brian Kemp and “take his temperature” on the possibility of a special session. A spokesperson for Kemp didn’t answer questions about what the outgoing Republican governor would do.

Anderson said without action, the state could be required to use hand-marked and hand-counted paper ballots in November.

Election officials say switching to a new system within just a few months, as advocated by some Republicans, would be nearly impossible.

“They made no way for this to happen except putting a deadline on it,” Cherokee County elections director Anne Dover said of the switch away from barcodes. Dover said one problem under some plans is that a very large number of ballots would have to be printed.

Lawmakers seemed more concerned about scoring political points than making practical plans, Paulding County Election Supervisor Deidre Holden said.

“If anyone is resilient and can get the job done, it’s all of us election officials, but the legislators need to work with us, and they need to understand what we do before they go making laws that are basically unachievable for us,” Holden said.

Supporters of hand-marked paper ballots say voters are more likely to trust in an accurate count if they can see what gets read by the scanner.

Right-wing election activists lobbied lawmakers for an immediate switch to hand-marked paper ballots, but the House turned away from a Senate proposal to do so.

Anderson said he wasn’t sure if a special session could escape those political crosswinds, but said Georgia lawmakers must fix the problem.

“This is a legislative problem,” Anderson said. “It’s a legislative solution that has to happen.”

Kramon and Amy write for the Associated Press.

ORLANDO, Fla. — Governors in Florida and Mississippi signed into law measures that require officials to verify the citizenship of voters, just as similar legislation being pushed by President Trump has stalled in Congress.

The law signed Wednesday by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was immediately challenged in court by civil rights organizations that said it will make it harder for Floridians to vote.

The citizenship provision of the law goes into effect Jan. 1. It requires voters to provide a birth certificate, passport or naturalization certificate as proof of citizenship if their eligibility to vote is challenged by government officials through cross-referencing voter registration applications with motor vehicle records.

“Many eligible voters do not have these documents and cannot obtain them for a variety of reasons — including because they were born without a birth certificate in the segregated South, because their documents were destroyed in a hurricane, or because they cannot afford the hundreds of dollars it costs to replace them,” the civil rights groups said in a lawsuit filed in federal court in South Florida.

The voting legislation being pushed aggressively by Trump in Congress would mandate that people provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, such as a U.S. passport, citizen naturalization certificate or a combination of a birth certificate and government-issued photo identification. It passed the House but was stalled in the Senate before lawmakers took a spring recess.

Under the Florida law, credit cards, student IDs and retirement community identifications can no longer be used as IDs when voting, and the citizenship status of a driver must be reflected on driver’s licenses starting in July 2027.

DeSantis said the law improves the security and transparency of Florida’s election system.

“In Florida, we will always stand up for election integrity,” the Republican governor said.

The new Mississippi law signed Wednesday requires local officials registering people to vote to run additional citizenship checks if applicants don’t have or can’t provide driver’s license numbers on their voter application. The law, which takes effect July 1, also requires the secretary of state to run annual checks of the voter rolls against an online database from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to flag any potential noncitizens who could be asked to provide proof of their eligibility.

“This is another win for election integrity in Mississippi [and America],” Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, said in a social media post. “We will continue to do everything in our power to make it infinitely harder — with a goal to make it impossible — to cheat in our elections!”

The Southern Poverty Law Center has said that the law could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Mississippians who don’t have a passport, lack a birth certificate or whose last names don’t match their birth certificates because of name changes due to marriage.

Four Republican-led states — Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota and Utah — have enacted laws this year to strengthen proof-of-citizenship requirements for voters. In Michigan, supporters of voter citizenship documentation have submitted 750,000 petition signatures in a bid to get a constitutional amendment on the November ballot.

The Republican-led Kansas Legislature also has passed legislation, though it still must go before the Democratic governor. Gov. Laura Kelly has until next week to decide whether she’ll sign the bill and hasn’t said publicly what she will do, though she has regularly vetoed past GOP-election bills. Supporters would need a two-thirds majority to override a veto — and thanks to Republican dissenters, the bill appeared to be a few votes short of that in the House.

Any efforts in Kansas to prevent noncitizens from registering to vote are shadowed by one of the state’s biggest political fiascos in recent memory — a requirement imposed in 2013 that people registering to vote in the state for the first time provide documentation of their U.S. citizenship.

That law ended up blocking the voter registrations of more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote, or 12% of everyone seeking to register in Kansas for the first time. Federal courts ultimately declared the law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn’t been enforced since 2018.

Schneider writes for the Associated Press. AP writers David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., and John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Strong majorities of California voters believe American democracy is under attack and, in the wake of U.S. Supreme Court rulings narrowing federal protections, support enacting a new state Voting Rights Act to prohibit discrimination and efforts to suppress the ability to cast a ballot, a new poll showed.

The survey showed a sharp partisan divide over increasing voting rights protections, with Democrats and political independents overwhelmingly in favor and a majority of Republicans opposed. Fears that American democracy was either under attack, or at the very least being “tested,” were shared across political allegiances, according to a new poll released Thursday by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.

“I think that it suggests that the California voters, especially Democrats and independents, are very worried about some of what they’ve seen going on in Washington, both the court decisions and the Trump administration,” said Eric Schickler, the institute’s co-director. “They see it as threatening kind of core American values.”

That anxiety comes after years of baseless claims by President Trump that the 2020 election was stolen from him, as well as Republican-led efforts to restrict the use of mail-in ballots and impose new requirements for voters to show identification and proof of citizenship.

Trump earlier this week signed an executive order to place new federal controls on voting by mail in states such as California, an action that Democrats called unconstitutional and vowed to challenge in court.

Schickler said Republican concerns about the fate of American democracy may stem in large part from allegations about voter fraud hyped by Trump and his supporters, including unfounded claims that droves of undocumented immigrants are swaying elections.

The survey found that 67% of California voters believe American democracy is under attack, including 84% of Democrats, 40% of Republicans and 64% of voters registered as “no party preference” or with other political parties. An almost equal number of Republicans, 38%, believed democracy was being “tested” but not under attack, compared with 13% of Democrats and 26% of independents. The remainder of those surveyed said American democracy is in no danger.

The partisan divide was more pronounced when voters were asked if they wanted California to enact its own Voting Rights Act after decisions by the Supreme Court limited federal protections against discrimination and unequal access to ballots, the poll found.

Overall, 66% of California registered voters backed adopting new state voter protections, with 88% of Democrats supporting new laws compared with 25% of Republicans and 66% of voters who are political independents or belong to other parties. Support for new state laws was strongest among Black voters — 72% — who historically have been targeted with discriminatory voting policies, including Jim Crow-era laws such as literacy tests and poll taxes.

The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned those policies, ensuring that the right to vote cannot be denied because of race. The law also ensured that Black Americans and other communities of color had the opportunity to participate in all parts of the political system and elect the leaders of their choosing, influencing how political districts are drawn. The act was reauthorized by Congress in 2006 by an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

“Now it has come to the point where the president has tried to convince people that somehow equal voting rights is bad, because, in his words, ‘The wrong people are voting right,’” said Matt Barreto, faculty director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project, referring to Trump. “You have super majorities, very large percentages of Californians, who want the state to do more to protect voting rights, I think, because of the very tenuous climate right now, with the president constantly going after states for vote by mail and trying to get their voter rolls and these other sorts of things.”

Recent rulings by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court also have rolled back federal protections under the Voting Rights Act. A pending case, Louisiana vs. Callais, which involves the drawing of congressional districts, may overturn some of the remaining protections, Barreto said.

“I think people should be extremely nervous this court has not shown a lot of support for voting rights, and that’s the reason why California has an opportunity to pass its own state laws,” he said.

Among the laws California legislators could adopt, Barreto said, would be protections for early voting, banning onerous requirements on voters to prove citizenship and provide identification, and ensuring that congressional and other political districts are created to allow minority groups to elect representatives of their choice.

The Berkeley poll also found widespread support among California voters for requiring that the top three financial backers supporting and opposing ballot measures be listed in official ballot voter guides. A majority of Californians also supported expanding access to translation and interpreter assistance for populations that make up at least 5% or 5,000 voters in a county.

The Berkeley IGS poll surveyed 5,109 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 15. 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.

Funding for the poll was provided to IGS by the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, a private foundation based in San Francisco that aims to increase civic participation and improve the state’s democratic processes.

WASHINGTON — Two-thirds of California voters disapprove of President Trump’s immigration policies and a majority believe those policies are discriminating against Latinos, according to a new poll.

Nearly half of the voters said they were concerned that they, a family member or a close friend could be detained because of Trump’s immigration policies.

The findings of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll, released Wednesday, show that most Californians haven’t budged on their thoughts about the president’s approach to immigration since he returned to office. A poll last August similarly showed strong disapproval of the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement.

The poll, which was conducted for the Los Angeles Times, showed the usual division along party lines when voters were asked whether they trust the U.S. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whether agents should wear masks while on duty, and whether Latinos are being discriminated against.

“This suggests that a significant number of voters see ICE infringement on the individual rights of the undocumented as also potentially leading to broader infringements on citizens’ rights,” said G. Cristina Mora, co-director of the institute and a sociology professor at UC Berkeley who studies race and immigration.

“Latino voters also seem to particularly worry about the way that racism is motivating current immigration practices,” she said, which is likely tied to the Supreme Court’s approval of immigration agents detaining people on the basis of their perceived race, ethnicity, language or occupation.

The overall disapproval among voters of Trump’s immigration policies — 64% — was down a bit from the August poll, in which 69% of respondents said they disapproved of how immigration enforcement was being carried out in California.

Republicans appear to be more approving of immigration policies now, with 86% saying they approve of Trump’s immigration policies — up from 79% approval of enforcement in California last August.

Mora said the tilt among California Republicans toward the Trump administration could be due, in part, to the framing of the question, which asked about “President Trump’s immigration policies.”

Any time Trump’s name is included, Republicans are more likely to agree with him, she said. The same effect is seen when asking about other issues, such as the economy.

Another factor could be the timing, Mora said. Last summer, federal agents conducted widespread raids in Los Angeles before moving on to target other cities, such as Chicago and Minneapolis.

Now that the administration has shifted away from some tactics that resulted in escalations of violence, Republicans are “falling in line” again with the administration, she said.

“My hunch is it was shocking,” Mora said of the immigration raids last summer. “Things have normalized because the tension is somewhere else.”

Seeking to de-escalate after two protesters were shot and killed by federal agents in Minneapolis, the president tapped his border advisor Tom Homan to take control of the immigration enforcement operation there.

Republican strategist Ford O’Connell said that’s why voters are more supportive.

“Tom Homan being in charge and publicly taking a much lighter touch and appearing reasonable to the average voter is why you’re seeing this turnaround,” he said.

But Democratic strategist Maria Cardona said that that’s wishful thinking and that ICE’s approach hasn’t substantially changed.

“It only went down five points,” she said, referring to the disapproval of Trump’s policies. “That’s not the American people being on the side of the administration — it’s that they’re not seeing American citizens murdered on their screens every day.”

One question saw strong division among Republicans: Should immigration agents be allowed to enter the homes of suspected undocumented immigrants without a judge-approved search warrant?

Among California Republicans, 45% said no, 38% said yes, and 17% said they have no opinion.

O’Connell said that’s because Republicans strongly value civil liberties, especially around property.

Republicans were more strongly in favor of a different policy, allowing ICE agents to wear masks while on duty. While 91% of Democrats opposed the policy, 68% of Republicans favored it.

In the August poll, 45% of Republicans said federal agents should be required to show clear identification when carrying out their work. That desire for identification doesn’t appear to extend to being fully identifiable by face.

O’Connell said Republicans understand the concern over agents increasingly being doxxed.

“The administration wants to find a happy medium there, whether it’s a nameplate or a badge number,” he said. “There is wiggle room.”

Nearly 7 in 10 respondents said they want state and local authorities to intervene when they witness unlawful detentions or excessive use of force by federal immigration agents.

Voters were also asked about their level of concern that they, a family member or a close friend could be detained because of Trump’s immigration policies. While 85% of Republicans said they are not too concerned or not concerned at all, 63% of Democrats said they are somewhat or very concerned.

Overall, nearly half of the respondents, 45%, said they are somewhat or very concerned. Among racial and ethnic groups, 62% of Latino voters, 46% of Black voters and 43% of Asian or Pacific Islander voters said they are somewhat or very concerned.

“The Latino community has always wanted to think the best of this country and they still do,” Cardona said. “Our positivism, our optimism, our hope in a better future is second to none. I think that’s what you’re seeing in those numbers, even as our community feels totally attacked.”

Mora said the high concern among Black residents is notable because, while most Black Californians aren’t immigrants themselves, Los Angeles has one of the largest concentrations of Blaxicans — the children of one Black parent and one Latino parent.

Beyond intermarriages, Black residents in California are also likely to have immigrant friends or neighbors, she said.

O’Connell took a different view: “I don’t think we can glean anything from it other than how one party focuses more on identity politics than the other.”

The Institute of Governmental Studies poll was completed online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 15 by 5,109 registered voters in California.

City Councilmember Nithya Raman came out ahead of incumbent Karen Bass in a new poll on the Los Angeles mayor’s race, though the poll’s director cautioned that it did not give the whole picture.

Raman had a commanding lead in a field of five major candidates, with 33% of voters supporting her, while Bass trailed at 17%, according to the poll by the Loyola Marymount University Center for the Study of Los Angeles.

Leftist Rae Huang came in just behind Bass at nearly 17%, while tech executive Adam Miller had 13% and conservative reality TV star Spencer Pratt had 12%.

Other polls have shown Bass in first place.

She was at 20% in an Emerson College Polling/Inside California Politics poll, with Raman at just over 9%. In a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll, co-sponsored by The Times, Bass was at 25% and Raman at 17%.

In the Loyola Marymount poll, unlike the other polls, respondents were given brief descriptions of the candidates, including their occupations and political priorities.

Raman was labeled a “progressive LA City Councilmember focused on housing affordability, homelessness and systemic reform,” while Bass was “incumbent mayor of Los Angeles, veteran legislator, focused on homelessness.”

One of Raman’s challenges, as a councilmember representing Los Feliz and Silver Lake as well as parts of the San Fernando Valley, is to spread her name recognition citywide, with the June 2 primary election about two months away. She entered the race to challenge Bass, her one-time ally, at the last minute, hours before the early February filing deadline.

The Loyola Marymount poll of 370 registered Los Angeles voters was conducted from Feb. 11 to March 16. It did not include a choice for “undecided,” while the other two polls showed that significant percentages of voters hadn’t made up their minds.

“This poll shows if only positive descriptors are used and context is provided, Raman is ahead,” said Fernando Guerra, director of Loyola Marymount’s Center for the Study of Los Angeles, who directed the poll.

Guerra said he believes Bass is the front-runner, taking the previous polls into account.

Bass’ campaign took issue with the Loyola Marymount poll.

“In 2022, this same LMU poll had Karen Bass at 16% — she ended up winning the primary with 43%. The only thing more ridiculous than this poll is Spencer Pratt’s performance on The Hills,” said Alex Stack, a spokesperson for the Bass campaign, referencing Pratt’s reality show.

Raman’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a post on X citing the poll, Raman wrote, “OUR CAMPAIGN IS SURGING … Angelenos are ready for a city that actually works.”

Paul Mitchell, vice president of the bipartisan voter data firm Political Data Inc., said the poll’s sample size was too small to draw conclusions and that the poll was less reliable because it was conducted over the course of more than a month.

He also noted that with many of the candidates relatively unknown, including the descriptors could have a major effect.

“I’m sure Nithya Raman doesn’t have citywide name recognition, but that description is really great,” Mitchell said.

Guerra said he didn’t include an “undecided” option because he wanted to “force” respondents to give an answer, similar to when they actually vote.

In the Emerson poll, more than 50% of voters were undecided on who to support for mayor. The Berkeley IGS poll showed about a quarter of voters were undecided.

In LMU’s mayoral poll from 2022, released in early March of that year, 42% of respondents chose “undecided/someone else” for mayor.

After Bass, who had 16% support, then-City Councilmember Kevin de Léon was second at 12% in the 2022 poll. Rick Caruso, the billionaire developer, who ended up making the runoff election against Bass, received 6% support.

In that year’s June primary, Bass got 43% of the vote, Caruso nearly 36% and De Léon about 8%.

This year’s LMU poll also asked L.A. voters what kind of candidate they would prefer for mayor.

Nearly 50% said they prefer a Democratic Socialist, while 25% said they want a moderate Democrat, 19% said a conservative and just 8% said an establishment Democrat.

“Los Angeles is much more progressive than its elected leadership. This poll captures that,” Guerra said.

Some disagreed.

Mike Trujillo, a consultant for moderate Democrats who is not representing anyone in the mayoral race, said polling he has done across the city shows that the Democratic Socialists of America’s popularity is much lower.

Raman is a dues-paying member of the Los Angeles chapter of DSA, which endorsed her in her two successful City Council campaigns.

“If you believe this poll, I have bridges to sell you on 1st Street, 6th Street, and Alameda Street — and there’s no bridge on Alameda,” he said. “The poll was basically A to Z in Nithya Raman’s contact list.”

This year’s LMU poll also asked L.A. County voters about the governor’s race. Former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter led at about 16%, followed by Republican Steve Hilton at 13% and billionaire Tom Steyer at 12%.

The Berkeley IGS poll showed two Republicans — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and Hilton — leading the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates by slim margins among voters statewide, with Democratic support split among multiple candidates in a left-leaning state.

WASHINGTON — With the Iran war in its fifth week, support for President Trump is at its lowest point ever, with a growing body of recent polling showing him losing ground with key voting blocs that helped power his 2024 victory.

While public dissatisfaction is evident among many groups surveyed, the decline in support for the president has been most pronounced among Latino voters.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released March 24 found 36% of voters approve of the president’s job performance, the lowest it has been during his second term. The poll found 62% disapproved.

Other polls, such as the AP-NORC poll, placed the figure at 38%.

In all, the president is underwater on almost every single public policy issue. With the exception of crime, which sits around 47% approval, he has recorded no gains in any polled category, according to experts.

On immigration, the president’s marquee issue, approval fell from roughly 45% in late 2025 to 39% in February, according to Reuters.

About 1 in 4 respondents approved of Trump’s handling of the economy, Reuters found, as domestic gas prices surged by more than $1 per gallon after fighting commenced last month. The share of Republicans who disapprove of his handling of cost-of-living issues rose 7 points in one week to 34%.

The shift comes amid growing economic unease and amplified backlash over the war in Iran. About 1 in 3 Americans approve of the military operation, according to a Reuters survey.

And a growing divide among prominent conservatives has emerged over the U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

The clashes have played out in public and are exposing tensions within the Republican Party, with conservative commentators such as Megyn Kelly openly questioning whether the war is in America’s best interest.

“This is not a foreign policy that makes sense and it is not what Trump ran on. It is, in many ways, a betrayal of his campaign promises, what he sold himself as and of his MAGA base,” Kelly said earlier this month.

Other conservative pundits, including Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, are also opposed.

But the real damage is showing up in the one place Trump can’t afford to lose: his base.

Trump entered his second term buoyed by historic gains with Latino voters. Exit polls indicated he improved his standing with them by more than 20 percentage points in 2024 compared with his 2016 victory, fueling widespread narratives that the demographic was undergoing a durable shift toward Republicans. In all, 48% of Latinos gave him their support in the last election.

Since then, his approval among Latino voters has plummeted to 22%, according to a March 2026 analysis by the Economist.

In a bipartisan poll by UnidosUS released in November, 14% of Latino voters said their lives were better after Trump took office, while 39% said they had gotten worse.

The president’s rapport with Latinos reflects a deep dissatisfaction with economic conditions, according to Mike Madrid, a veteran California Republican political consultant and expert on Latino voting trends.

“Overwhelmingly, this is a function of the economy and affordability,” he said. “Latino voters moved away from Biden-Harris for the exact same reasons that they’re moving away from Donald Trump right now.”

Research and polling suggests Latino voters prioritize cost-of-living issues — such as housing, wages and inflation — over immigration, a topic often emphasized in national messaging.

“It’s not even close,” Madrid said. “Immigration is not even a top 5 issue for Latino voters.”

Madrid suggested the demographic rallying is less a “reversion” and more a reflection of a rapidly changing electorate.

“Latinos have emerged as the only true swing vote in America,” he said. “And they’re rejecting whichever party is in power.”

These volatile, double-digit voting shifts directly contrast more stable voting patterns among other major demographic groups, including the Black and white electorates, where shifts from cycle to cycle tend to be just a few points.

The reason: dramatic turnout fluctuations. Who decides to show out or stay home on election day tends to change by the year. It’s compounded by the fact that there are far more first-time Latino voters than in any other category.

Polling this month suggests Trump is also losing ground among young voters, another group that contributed to his 2024 gains.

More than half of men under the age of 30 supported Trump in that election, helping him turn several swing states.

In just a year, that demographic has cratered by 20 points.

“Trump won in 2024 because of men. They are abandoning him right now,” CNN senior data analyst Harry Enten said Tuesday.

The reversals could have massive implications for the November midterm elections, particularly in competitive congressional districts where small swings could determine control of the House.

Republicans have warned that if they lose hold of their narrow congressional majority, Trump is likely to face a third impeachment.

UCLA political scientist Matt Barreto said movement away from Republicans is already visible in real-world election outcomes, not just polling.

“We’ve already seen in the Virginia and New Jersey legislative and gubernatorial elections really large shifts in the Latino vote, 25 points back to the Democratic Party,” Barreto said. He added that similar patterns have emerged in places such as Miami and Texas, where Democratic candidates have outperformed expectations with strong Latino support.

Latino Democrats who sat out the 2024 election are returning to the electorate, while some Latino Republicans are disengaging, he said.

That dynamic could prove decisive in November. There are more than 40 congressional districts where the number of registered Latino voters exceeds the margin of victory in 2024, Barreto said. Many of them are closely divided between the parties.

“At the district level, the Latino vote is going to make a huge impact,” he said.