VOTERS

NASHUA, N.H. — The problem for Patrick J. Buchanan, the silver-tongued Republican who would be President, is people like George Anthes.

“It seems that Pat Buchanan has truly caught fire,” says Anthes, the king of talk radio at station WMVU, introducing the candidate to a listening audience of flinty New Englanders. “There seems to be a change brewing.”

And so Buchanan begins his spiel: The national polls–three of five in August–that peg him No. 2 behind Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas in the race for the GOP nomination. His recent endorsement by the Manchester Union Leader, the paper of record for New Hampshire’s hard-core conservatives. A credible showing in the recent Iowa straw poll–in his eyes, No. 3 with a bullet.

“We have crossed the threshold,” said a confident Buchanan, “of credibility and electability.”

Not so fast. Thirty minutes later, with the microphone off and the candidate heading quickly for the door, Anthes gets a little more honest. “I’d love to see Pat as President, but I have my doubts.” A pause. “He is picking up though.”

Well, sort of. Somehow, even when they suffer setbacks or fail to make headway in the polls, Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, ex-Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander and California Gov. Pete Wilson get taken seriously as potential nominees. Even when Buchanan is on a roll–like the one that fuels his hopes today–he is rarely accorded the same respect.

The reasons are plentiful. Buchanan rose to prominence as a commentator and author; although he ran for President in 1992, he has never won an elected office. He is an unabashed, uncompromising conservative, and thus a polarizing figure to many. And the disdain he does not hide for some in his own party has cut into his ability to raise money.

Buchanan and his followers are “outsiders, they’re populists,” said political analyst Kevin Phillips. “In terms of the Republican power elite, they’re not Buchananites. He could never be the nominee.”

Striving for Second

Buchanan, 56, is undeterred by such naysayers. And his quest, at least for now, is not to be No. 1, but to come in second in the early primaries and caucuses of 1996–a crucial three weeks, Buchanan contends, that will decide if he can raise the money to continue campaigning.

“I’ve got the resources to go three weeks,” said the candidate, who so far has raised about $3 million and spent an estimated $2.5 million. A bad showing in those crucial contests and contributions will dry up, leaving him at great disadvantage to his cushier competitors who have the money “to sustain the kinds of defeats I can’t.”

Indeed, as of June 30, in the most recent Federal Election Commission statistics available, Dole had raised $13.5 million and had $6.5 million cash on hand; Gramm had raised $16.8 million and had $7.3 million left.

Dole’s and Gramm’s years in public office have given them extensive lists of big-money campaign donors. Buchanan, on the other hand, appeals to ideologically inspired small donors and reports an average contribution of less than $40. “We are appealing to the grass-roots,” said K. B. Forbes, Buchanan’s deputy press secretary.

Buchanan is struggling mightily to claim the crown of true conservative in a crowded field of candidates, to fuse together the disaffected, the religious, the working class, Ross Perot voters, gun owners, the Christian Coalition. He is striving to be second.

“Dole might be ahead of me,” Buchanan contended, “but then the conservatives will say: ‘It’s Buchanan or Dole.’ If they say that, then I can beat Bob Dole.”

Hanging over the upbeat campaign for the past month was the ill health of Buchanan’s mother, Catherine, 83, who was injured in a fall. She died Monday, and Buchanan headed home from a campaign swing in the West.

One recent Sunday morning, he could be found striding into Washington’s National Airport, fresh from a hand-clapping, foot-stomping success at the Christian Coalition’s annual meeting. He was armed with a newspaper and briefcase, garbed in the politician’s standard-issue blue suit. He was headed to New Hampshire for three days of campaigning. No one paid a bit of attention.

This is the conservative made famous by his 1992 declaration of a cultural war “for the soul of America,” a battle that he will likely wage as long as he can breathe–and talk.

“Have you read that U.N. report?” he asked supporters at a Republican town hall meeting in New Hampshire later the same day. “They say there aren’t two sexes, there are five genders.”

He paused for laughter, warmed to his crowd and continued: “They started with heterosexual; I followed them there. They went on to homosexual; I was slowing down. They said transsexual, that’s the third one. I don’t understand the last two. I tell you this: God created man and woman, I don’t care what Bella Abzug says.”

In the circles Buchanan travels, that one always goes over well. So do his stands on affirmative action (against), abortion (vehemently against), the death penalty (oh, yes), the Department of Education (oh, no).

He would bury the North American Free Trade Agreement and erect an ideological wall around the nation to rival the actual wall he would build along the U.S. border with Mexico. No more foreign aid, no more global free trade. In Buchanan’s brand of economic nationalism, “we must stop sacrificing American jobs on the altar of transnational corporations.”

And he would tell the nation about his economic platform, unveiled in a recent Wall Street Journal essay, if only people would tear their attention away from his stand on social issues. His program, he contends, will make America “the enterprise zone for the entire industrialized Western world.”

The highlights: A flat tax on personal income. A flat tax for big corporations. A much lower tax for small ones. No more inheritance tax on family businesses and family farms. He will pay for the plan with a 10% tariff on Japanese imports and a 20% tariff on Chinese goods.

In New Hampshire, with its recent memory of economic privation, of local industries fleeing oversees, the Buchanan plan resonates.

Norma Moreau, 38, stands in front of Martha’s Exchange restaurant and brew pub here in Nashua, waiting for a friend so they can map out the future of her small-business career. Moreau said that she is likely to cast her ballot for Buchanan, even though she disagrees with his rock-solid stand against abortion. Everything else, she says, she likes–particularly the tariffs.

“I think there should be tariffs put on anything from another country,” said the owner of Imprints Ink, a struggling silk-screening firm. “We have to protect our own jobs. All we do is help other countries. Why don’t we take the money and help the United States?”

She has too many friends who have lost their jobs, run out of unemployment assistance, lost their homes. “It’s sad,” she said.

Familiar Territory

Buchanan used this New Hampshire despair, coupled with Republican anger at the 1991 tax increase shepherded by then-President George Bush, to garner an unimaginable 37% of the vote in the 1992 GOP primary here.

He still considers the region his, with its picket fences, clapboard houses, and guys named Charlie who wear shirts and ties when they go to work pumping gas at the local Shell station.

People here still smoke in restaurants; adults are not required to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets. The state motto is, “Live Free or Die.”

At St. Marie Parish in industrial Manchester, where Buchanan took in Sunday Mass, the homily began with a tale about how burdensome laws in New York City required Mother Teresa to install an elevator for the handicapped in her refurbished community center. The result, according to the priest: She left.

“I notice Pat Buchanan is here,” said Father Marc Montminy to great applause. “Welcome in our midst.”

Charles M. Arlinghaus, executive director of New Hampshire’s Republican State Committee, contends that the race here is still wide open and that Buchanan still has a shot. “Anyone could win New Hampshire,” he said, “with a couple of exceptions I won’t name.”

Phillips concedes that Buchanan was underestimated in New Hampshire in 1992.

But the author of the American Political Report figures that a GOP presidential nomination for the conservative commentator and author is “unlikely.” Chances are, Phillips says, Buchanan will not even win 25% of the vote in the upcoming New Hampshire primary.

“I think 25% would be doing very well,” Phillips said. “It would probably put him second place, clearly put him third. He does have a chance of going that high. On the other hand, the chance of Pat lasting with a lot of pep into March is not very good. He doesn’t have the budget.”

But the lengthy race to choose a President is still in its very early stages, as was painfully evident as Buchanan campaigned in Concord Sept. 11.

Performing the mandatory New Hampshire dance of meet and greet the voters, he introduced himself to Bea McGinnis, 76, a loyal Republican, shook her hand and went on his way. And who does McGinnis like in the Republican race? “Well, you got Bill Wilson, running, right? He’s a Republican. And I like John over there,” she said, glancing at Buchanan’s receding back. “That’s his name, right?”

La Ganga reported this story while on assignment in New Hampshire.

In a sharp repudiation of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, voters rejected his most sweeping ballot proposals on Tuesday in an election that shattered his image as an agent of the popular will.

Voters turned down his proposals to curb state spending, redraw California’s political map and lengthen the time it takes teachers to get tenure.

With most of the votes counted, Californians were leaning against Proposition 75, his plan to require unions for public workers to get written consent from members before spending their dues money on politics.

The Republican governor had cast the four initiatives as central to his larger vision for restoring fiscal discipline to California and reforming its notoriously dysfunctional politics. The failure of Proposition 76, his spending restraints, and Proposition 77, his election district overhaul, represented a particularly sharp snub of the governor by California voters. It also threw into question his strategy of threatening lawmakers with statewide votes to get around them when they block his favored proposals.

On a Beverly Hills stage Tuesday night next to his wife, Maria Shriver, Schwarzenegger pledged “to find common ground” with his Democratic adversaries in Sacramento.

“The people of California are sick and tired of all the fighting, and they are sick and tired of all the negative TV ads,” he told supporters at the Beverly Hilton. He did not concede, saying instead that “in a couple of days the victories or the losses will be behind us.”

Dogging the governor, as it has for months, was the California Nurses Assn., which organized a luau at the Trader Vic’s in the same hotel. As Schwarzenegger’s defeats mounted, giddy nurses formed a conga line and danced around the room, singing, “We’re the mighty, mighty nurses.”

At labor’s election night party in Sacramento, union leaders were not in a forgiving mood, vowing revenge against the governor next year when he seeks reelection. They were particularly incensed that he had not given union members their due for what they believed to be a clean sweep of his agenda.

“He never apologized once for trashing every one of us,” said Mike Jimenez, president of the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. “And I can tell you, tomorrow we’re not going to apologize for the way this election turned out. Tomorrow starts Round 2.”

California Teachers Assn. President Barbara Kerr told several hundred activists in the ballroom: “This governor wasted $50 million, and he does not have the courage to apologize to all of you for the trash he talked about you. He doesn’t have the courage to say he was wrong, that we’re the real heroes of California.”

For months, labor and its Democratic allies called Schwarzenegger’s agenda an assault on nurses, firefighters, teachers and other public employees. Labor’s $100-million campaign against the governor this year has battered his public image as he prepares to seek reelection in 2006.

Also on the ballot were four other initiatives. Voters were narrowly defeating Proposition 73, which would bar abortions for minors without parental notification. The state Republican Party promoted Schwarzenegger’s endorsement of the measure among evangelicals and other religious conservatives in a bid to boost turnout of voters who would back the rest of his agenda.

By a wide margin, voters also rejected rival measures on prescription-drug discounts. The pharmaceutical industry spent $80 million on a campaign to defeat Proposition 79, a labor and consumer-group proposal, and pass its own alternative, Proposition 78.

Voters also turned down Proposition 80, a complex measure to revamp rules governing the electricity industry. The initiative, sponsored by consumer advocates, tried to draw on public anger from the state’s 2000 energy crisis, but polls suggested that it confused voters.

Overall, the special election called by Schwarzenegger to win public validation of his agenda sparked a campaign that became the costliest in California’s history. All told, the yes and no campaigns on the eight initiatives spent more than $250 million.

Schwarzenegger put in $7.2 million of his own money. That brings his total personal spending on political endeavors to $25 million since he ran for governor in the 2003 recall race.

Former Gov. Pete Wilson, a political mentor to Schwarzenegger, watched returns with the governor at the Hilton. “It took courage to do it,” Wilson said of the special election. “Why run for office if you’re not going to do anything with it?”

But state Senate leader Don Perata, a Democrat from Oakland, said Tuesday night that Schwarzenegger had “sowed the seeds of his own demise” by taking on the full gamut of public workers, who make up more than half of the union members in California.

“He got a lot of really bad advice,” Perata said.

By the time voters started lining up at neighborhood polling places Tuesday morning, 2.2 million Californians had already cast their ballots by mail. The vote came after months of heavy television advertising, often with back-to-back spots prodding voters in opposite directions on the bewildering set of initiatives.

At a Rancho Palos Verdes polling station, David Berman, a 46-year-old doctor, captured the feeling of many fellow Democrats when he threw up his hands and declared the election pointless.

“It’s a waste of money,” he said.

In Baldwin Park, Renee Martinez, 50, spoke for the governor’s Republican loyalists, saying her goal Tuesday was “to back Arnold.”

“I’m his,” she said. “He tells you like it is, and I believe him.”

The election followed a steep political slide for Schwarzenegger. He sustained stratospheric popularity ratings in his first year as governor by maximizing his appeal as an outsider with a fresh take on the state capital. Facing a severe fiscal mess, he favored bipartisan compromise over pitched battles with Democrats and their union allies.

But late last year, he set in motion a cascade of political misfortunes by aligning himself more closely with the Republican Party, a costly move in a state that strongly favors Democrats.

He championed the reelection of President Bush, widely disliked in California, in a prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention in New York. Days before the divisive national election, he campaigned for Bush in Ohio, a crucial swing state.

In California, meanwhile, Schwarzenegger led the GOP push to wrest seats from Democrats in the Legislature, hoping to bolster his position there. Republicans failed to win any new seats, but the governor succeeded in antagonizing the Democrats who control both the Assembly and Senate.

In January, he deepened his troubles by taking on public-employee unions in his State of the State speech, further annoying the Democratic lawmakers who rely heavily on labor support. He demanded state spending limits and new districts for legislators, along with an overhaul of the state pension system. He threatened to call a special election if Democrats blocked his plans, saying voters would heed his call to “rise up” and reform Sacramento.

Further isolating himself, he went on to break his deal with educators to restore $2 billion taken from public schools to balance the previous year’s budget. At the same time, he kept his pledge not to raise income taxes, a popular stand with Republicans.

By winter’s end, unions had launched a punishing television ad campaign, pounding Schwarzenegger for breaking his promise on schools. The ads also exploited a bungle by the authors of the governor’s pension proposal: It would have denied survivor benefits to the families of firefighters and police officers killed in the line of duty. The governor abandoned it.

Personal missteps added to Schwarzenegger’s woes. He called Democratic lawmakers “girlie men” for bridling at spending cuts. When nurses heckled him, his response provided fodder for a scathing union television ad: “The special interests don’t like me in Sacramento, because I am always kicking their butts.”

To gain publicity as a champion bodybuilder and film star, Schwarzenegger had often made fun of people, but in politics the tactic backfired, said Laurence Leamer, author of “Fantastic: The Life of Arnold Schwarzenegger.”

“It began to turn against him, because his opponents were very, very shrewd and calculating in the way they exploited it,” Leamer said.

Unions made nurses, teachers and firefighters the face of their anti-Schwarzenegger campaign, which only intensified after lawmakers rejected his demands, leading him to call Tuesday’s special election. By last week, his job approval rating had dropped to 40% of likely voters in a Los Angeles Times poll, down from 69% a year earlier.

Schwarzenegger framed the election as a “sequel” to the recall, a package of proposals that would reform state politics and government.

But the centerpiece of his agenda, Proposition 76, offered political grist for the unions: It would have given more budget authority to the governor — a power grab by labor’s account — and make complex changes in the minimum school-spending rules that California voters approved in 1988.

His redistricting plan, Proposition 77, also faced an uphill fight, given California voters’ long history of rejecting plans to reshape the way political maps are drawn.

Schwarzenegger argued that state lawmakers should not be allowed to “pick their voters” by drawing district lines to protect incumbents.

Opponents countered that the governor’s plan to give the job to retired judges would put, for the most part, white elderly men in charge of drawing maps for an increasingly diverse state.

Schwarzenegger’s tenure proposal, Proposition 74, sparked fierce opposition from the California Teachers Assn., which put nearly $60 million into the fight. The governor said it was nearly impossible to get rid of bad teachers, such as one who showed an R-rated movie in the classroom. The union accused him of attacking the profession and jeopardizing the effort to relieve the state’s teacher shortage.

But his labor adversaries were most concerned about Proposition 75, the restraint on union campaign spending.

National union leaders flew to California in recent days to campaign against the measure, underscoring their fear that similar proposals in other states could further weaken organized labor, already torn by a schism in the national AFL-CIO.

“It’s a basic attack on workers in so many ways,” AFL-CIO President John Sweeney told reporters Tuesday in Los Angeles.

Unions have spent about $100 million on the campaign against Schwarzenegger’s ballot measures at a time of vigorous debate over how much money labor should devote to politics.

“We’re still doing what we need to do with collective bargaining and organizing new members, but it is definitely a drain on our treasury,” said J.J. Johnston, California area director of the Service Employees International Union.

Regardless of Tuesday’s results, Schwarzenegger sets out today on his yearlong quest for political recovery, both as governor and reelection candidate.

Other unpopular governors, such as Pete Wilson and Gray Davis, have overcome abysmal poll ratings to win second terms. Few strategists doubt Schwarzenegger’s capacity to do the same, and on Tuesday in Beverly Hills he seemed intent on pursuing the centrist path that worked for him in his early days as governor.

“I recognize we also need more bipartisan cooperation to make it all happen, and I promise I will deliver that,” he said.

Times staff writers Noam N. Levey, Dan Morain, Jordan Rau, Hemmy So and Kelly-Anne Suarez contributed to this report.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Past turnout

Fewer voters usually turn out for special elections than for regular elections. An exception occurred in 2003, when Gray Davis was recalled and Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor.

Turnout in previous statewide elections:

*–* *1962 78.73% *1966 79.20% *1970 76.19% **1973 47.62% *1974 64.11% *1978 70.41% **1979 37.38% *1982 69.78% *1986 59.35% *1990 58.61% **1993 36.37% *1994 60.45% *1998 57.59% *2002 50.57% **2003 61.20%

*–*

*Non-presidential general elections

**Special elections

Source: California secretary of state

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has a lead over her challengers in her bid for reelection, but more than half of voters view her unfavorably, according to a poll released Sunday.

Bass was supported by 25% of voters, while City Councilmember Nithya Raman drew 17% and conservative reality TV star Spencer Pratt came in third at 14% in the poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times.

About a quarter of voters were undecided, the poll found.

Bass has come under heavy criticism for her handling of the devastating Palisades fire. More than a year later, 56% of those polled said they had an unfavorable view of her, while 31% viewed her favorably.

The survey of 840 likely voters between March 9 and 15 provides one of the first snapshots of the mayoral race, less than three months before the June 2 primary.

Beyond the top three, leftist Rae Huang notched support from 8% of those polled, while tech entrepreneur Adam Miller drew 6%.

Despite Bass’ lead, the poll is “borderline catastrophic” for her, because the field of candidates is so weak, said Dan Schnur, a politics professor at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine.

“That she’s having this much trouble against this field, against such a little-known field of opponents, bodes very, very poorly for her,” Schnur said. “The only thing saving her at this point is that the top tier of potential candidates who were considering running against her decided to stay out of this race.”

The mayoral race solidified in early February, when Raman shocked the political establishment by jumping in against her ally Bass, hours before the filing deadline.

By that time, other well-known politicians, including billionaire developer Rick Caruso and L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, had opted to stay out of the race. Former Los Angeles schools Supt. Austin Beutner dropped out following the death of his 22-year-old daughter.

Those decisions have left Angelenos with a field of candidates they hardly know. While they have strong views about Bass, slightly more than half of those polled said they didn’t know enough about Raman to have an opinion. Even more voters were unfamiliar with the other candidates.

Bass was on a diplomatic trip to Ghana when the Palisades fire ignited on Jan. 7, 2025, killing 12 people and destroying thousands of homes. She was unsteady in her initial public appearances and has since come under attack by Pratt, Caruso and others over the LAFD’s management of the fire and the pace of the recovery as well as allegations that she ordered an after-action report on the fire to be watered down.

Bass’ campaign has pointed to declining homelessness and crime as among the successes of her first term as mayor.

“It’s clear Angelenos are frustrated by decades of inaction on major issues,” Douglas Herman, a spokesperson for the Bass campaign, said in a statement. “This campaign will show that it’s Karen Bass who changed the direction on these issues and that others running responded with reports while Karen Bass took action.”

Raman, who represents Los Feliz and parts of Silver Lake and the San Fernando Valley, was viewed favorably by 26% of those polled and unfavorably by 23%. The 51% who said they didn’t have an opinion of her could be an indication that she has yet to expand her name recognition citywide.

She has said that her decision to run was driven in part by her frustration with city leaders’ inability to get the basics right, such as fixing streetlights and paving streets.

“I am very grateful that our campaign to make our city more affordable is resonating with so many Angelenos,” she said in a statement.

Former City Councilmember Mike Bonin, who runs the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State L.A., said that after the shock of Raman’s entry into the race, the mayoral campaign has taken on a sleepier pace.

“Candidates are raising money and doing their due diligence … but it’s felt like a staid, quiet race,” he said. “This poll reflects that.”

Bonin said the most important number is the gap between Raman and Pratt.

If no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote in the primary, the top two finishers will proceed to a November run off. According to Bonin, Raman and Pratt will likely be jockeying to face off against Bass.

“While voters are clearly looking for an alternative [to Bass], they haven’t chosen one,” Bonin said.

The poll showed Bass — the city’s first female mayor and first Black female mayor — with strong support from Black voters, at 43%, while Raman has 6%.

Raman, who if elected would be the city’s first South Asian mayor, leads with Asian and Pacific Islander voters at 34%, with Bass at 10%.

Bass performs better with older voters, while Raman and Huang are appealing to younger voters, the poll found. Huang led the pack at 19% with voters between 18 and 29 years old.

In the poll, Angelenos ranked their top priorities for the next mayor to address. Building more affordable housing came in first, followed by fixing streets, sidewalks and streetlights and then moving homeless Angelenos indoors.

One potential bright spot for Bass was policing.

The poll found that 39% of Angelenos think the LAPD needs to increase in size, with 29% saying the department should stay the same size and 19% saying it should shrink.

Bass has called on the City Council to hire more police officers.

Raman, meanwhile, has said that she believes the police force is the right size at around 8,700 officers, down from a peak of 10,000 in 2020.

“Bass is going to make Raman look like AOC’s liberal sister,” said Schnur, referring to progressive U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). “If she ends up in a runoff against Raman, she can run as a tough-on-crime centrist.”

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

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

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

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

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

Noncitizen voting is rare

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

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

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

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

Qualifying documents, with caveats

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

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

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

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

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

The stipulations continue, buried in the fine print.

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

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

Passport requires time and money

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birth and marriage certificates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smyth writes for the Associated Press.

A majority of Los Angeles voters are undecided about the race for mayor, with support for incumbent Karen Bass at 20%, according to a new poll.

The poll by Emerson College Polling/Inside California Politics found that about 51% of Angelenos have not made up their minds about who should lead the city for the next four years.

Spencer Pratt, a conservative reality TV star, came in second to Bass, at just over 10%. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, a former Bass ally who shook up the field with her last-minute entry, polled at slightly more than 9%. Tech entrepreneur Adam Miller was supported by just over 4% of those polled, with leftist candidate Rae Huang at about 3%.

Although Bass had the most support among the candidates in the June 2 primary election, the poll showed that nearly half of Angelenos are unhappy with her performance. She was weakened politically by her handling of the devastating Palisades fire but has touted reductions in homicides and homelessness.

About 25% of those polled said they approve of the job Bass is doing as mayor, while about 47% disapprove. About 28% said they have no opinion or felt neutral.

The poll, based on interviews with 350 likely voters March 7-9, revealed just how up for grabs the mayoral election is, with less than three months before the primary.

“This is a wide open race,” said Zev Yaroslavsky, a former city council member and L.A. County supervisor who runs the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. “The general narrative [of the poll] is that the mayor is not popular for somebody going into reelection, but the majority of people have not made up their mind whether they’ll come back to her or go to someone else.”

City Councilmember Nithya Raman meets with reporters after filing paperwork to run for mayor of Los Angeles.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Bass campaign spokesperson Doug Herman did not respond directly to the poll. But he said in a statement that the mayor “took on the challenge to change Los Angeles after decades of decline from long ignored issues; resulting in first ever back to back drops in homelessness, 60 year lows in homicides and an unprecedented 40,000 affordable housing units accelerated.”

Pratt said through a campaign spokesperson, “The Emerson poll confirms what we’ve been seeing on the ground — this is a two-person race for Mayor of Los Angeles between me and Karen Bass. Angelenos are frustrated with the direction of the city and it’s reflected in her low approval numbers. Our campaign is gaining real momentum as more voters look for new leadership focused on results and accountability. This race is just getting started.”

Raman’s campaign, however, said she’s the one gaining momentum.

“It’s clear that voters want change, and we’re gaining momentum for our campaign to make L.A. more affordable and to govern with urgency and accountability,” the campaign said in a statement.

The field of candidates did not take shape until the week of the February filing deadline. Billionaire developer Rick Caruso and L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath both flirted with a run before deciding against it, and former L.A. schoolsSupt. Austin Beutner dropped out after the death of his 22-year-old daughter. With no other major candidate opposing Bass, Raman filed her paperwork with hours to spare.

With petitions still being verified, 13 mayoral candidates have qualified for the June ballot. If no one gets 50% of the vote in the primary, the top two finishers will head to a runoff in November.

“This race could shift dramatically come June,” Spencer Kimball, executive director of Emerson College Polling, said in a statement.

Kimball cited the large percentage of undecided voters of all stripes — 67% of independents, 49% of Democrats and 37% of Republicans are undecided. Pratt is a Republican, and the other major candidates are Democrats in a heavily blue city.

Pacific Palisades resident Spencer Pratt, who lost his home in the Palisades fire, stands with supporters after announcing his run for Los Angeles mayor on the one-year anniversary of the Palisades fire in the Palisades Village on Jan. 7, 2026.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

The poll is not the first to show negative views of Bass.

Last year, after the Palisades fire, a poll of L.A. County residents by the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs found that 37% held favorable views of the mayor, while 49% held unfavorable views.

The Emerson poll also featured questions on issues such as public safety and homelessness.

More than 82% of Angelenos in the poll said they feel very safe or somewhat safe in their communities, while about 17% said they feel not too safe or not safe at all.

On homelessness, the view was grimmer. Only 15% of Angelenos polled said that homelessness is getting better, while more than 55% said it is getting worse. Almost 30% feel it is staying the same.

Los Angeles has seen significant reductions in street homelessness for the last two years, after years of steady increases.

Bass has attributed the declines to her signature Inside Safe program, which clears encampments and places homeless people in short term housing.

“There is no doubt that Inside Safe, by bringing thousands of people inside and reducing street homelessness by 17.5 percent, has saved lives and helped drive this decline,” Bass said in a statement Tuesday.

The Emerson poll also asked California residents about the governor’s race. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) had the most support at slightly more than 17%, followed by Republicans Steve Hilton at just over 13% and Chad Bianco at more than 11%. Billionaire Tom Steyer came in at about 11%.

Nearly a quarter of California voters were undecided, according to the poll.

Paul Mitchell, a political data expert, called the Emerson poll flawed. Not enough Angelenos were polled, and the sample skewed too heavily toward young people, when older residents are more likely to vote, he said.

Mitchell called the poll an “amuse-bouche.”

“This tells all of the candidates [they] should be doing a poll,” he said.

March 10 (UPI) — Votes are being cast in the Georgia special election to replace Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., on Tuesday.

Greene’s resignation, announced earlier this year, leaves an open seat in Congress to represent Georgia District 14. More than a dozen Republican candidates are vying for the seat, along with a small handful of Democrats.

The special election is open, meaning there are no party primaries to determine the candidates. A candidate must earn a majority of votes to win the election. If no candidate meets this criteria, a runoff election will be held on April 7.

The seat is in a largely Republican leaning district. Greene won the 14th Congressional District by 29 percent in 2024.

The winner of the election will serve out the remainder of Greene’s term that ends on Jan. 3, 2027.

Greene, long an ardent supporter of President Donald Trump, became at odds with the president over a number of issues in the past year. Notably, she pushed for the release of government files on notorious sex trafficker and former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein. She also broke with Trump over his support of Israel and military actions abroad, including strikes against Iran.

Trump has weighed in on the race to replace Greene, giving his endorsement to Clay Fuller, a district attorney and Air National Guard officer.

Political pundits are watching Tuesday’s election closely to see how much weight Trump’s endorsement carries with voters.

With Greene’s resignation, Republicans hold a narrower majority in the U.S. House. The majority falls to Republicans by a 218-14 count with three vacancies.

Republican Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif., died on Jan 6, the day after Greene announced her resignation. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., resigned on Nov. 20.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Oscar voting began yesterday. How many of the nominated movies have you seen? Are you doing your due diligence in all the categories before the March 15 ceremony or, given the summer weather outside your window, might the mountains be calling?

I’m Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times and host of The Envelope newsletter. It’s never too early for flip-flops, is it?

Testing out a new mandate

To vote for the Oscars, you have to watch all the nominated movies.

This may seem obvious. But until this year, the motion picture academy operated entirely on the honor system, strongly encouraging members to see everything before voting.

Now voters have to show their work — up to a point.

This year, academy members are required to certify through the group’s screening room portal that they have viewed all nominated films in each category to be eligible to vote in that category. Since nominations were announced in January, the academy has been emailing voters with updates on their progress, indicating where they’re cleared to vote and where they still have work to do.

One wrinkle, and it’s not a small one: Members can simply check a box indicating that they’ve watched a movie outside the academy’s platform. Perhaps they saw it at a festival, on a streaming platform other than the portal or the place God intended films to be seen — a movie theater.

Whether they actually did watch the movies is left to the honesty of the voter. It’s still an honor system, and members do not need to show movie stubs, tickets or receipts.

Talking with academy members, there seems to be a little wiggle room when it comes to having a clear conscience.

Take the voter who loved Ethan Hawke‘s lead turn as legendary lyricist Lorenz Hart in “Blue Moon,” but hated “Marty Supreme,” turning it off 20 minutes after starting it. Since the academy’s screening room counts a movie as watched only if it’s viewed in its entirety, this voter told me they planned on restarting “Marty Supreme” one night and running it on mute so he could vote in the lead actor category.

“I’d seen enough,” he said. “Watching [Timothée] Chalamet play another pingpong tournament wouldn’t make me change my mind.”

Other academy members told me they were OK marking the “watched” box next to a movie they hadn’t seen, provided they had viewed four of the category’s other nominees. By and large though, they were the outliers. Most voters said they were happy to abstain from voting in a category in which they hadn’t watched all the nominated work. (As academy members may not publicly state voting decisions or preferences, voters spoke on the condition of anonymity.)

“I don’t need to see another ‘Avatar’ movie,” a producers branch member said. “So I’m fine not voting for visual effects or costume design this year. Life is short.”

“I like the idea that I can abstain from categories without any guilt,” an Oscar-nominated writer noted, adding that she thought the new system has been “helpful, reminding me to watch things.”

To that effect, academy members have been receiving a flurry of emails and texts that would give off Big Brother vibes if it didn’t simply boil down to an admonition to watch “Frankenstein” so they could vote in the nine categories where Guillermo del Toro’s monster movie is nominated.

It really isn’t that big an ask, as in recent years the Oscars have become increasingly dominated by a smaller number of movies vacuuming up a greater share of the nominations. This year, the five movies earning the most recognition — “Sinners,” “One Battle After Another,” “Marty Supreme,” “Frankenstein” and “Hamnet” — hauled in 56 nominations.

If an Oscar voter viewed the 10 best picture nominees, they’d be eligible to mark their ballots in best picture and eight other categories — supporting actor, adapted screenplay, casting, cinematography, film editing, production design and original score. Add Hawke’s “Blue Moon” and that opens up lead actor. Make it a double feature with “It Was Just an Accident” and original screenplay becomes available.

“You don’t really need to be much more than a casual moviegoer to knock out most of your ballot,” an actors branch member told me, “except for things like animation and documentaries and the shorts. I don’t know how many people watch all of those.”

Nobody does, save for the PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants counting the ballots. The question vexing both voters and the awards consultants paid to persuade them is how this new, formalized voting will affect the results. As Oscar winners are sometimes the movies that are the most-watched, might requiring voters to see all the nominated work boost less-publicized efforts?

“If ‘Sirât’ wins sound over ‘F1,’ then I think it’s a new ballgame,” one veteran campaigner said. “Right now, though, nobody knows.”

We will soon. In the meantime, with Oscar voting running through Thursday, some academy members tell me their weekend is booked.

“Three nights, three movies,” one voter said. “And then I’m watching ‘Bridgerton.’”