Despite being close to terming out of office, and also otherwise occupied with his ever-emerging presidential run, Gov. Gavin Newsom last week found time to announce a consequential, if controversial, move that has the potential to vastly improve educational outcomes for California kids: switching out an independent, voter-chosen leader for a hired gun.
In legislation signed last week, Newsom basically eviscerated the role of the elected superintendent of public instruction and instead shifted oversight of our K-12 schools to a newly created education commissioner — to be appointed by the governor.
It’s to Newsom’s credit that he’s setting up his successor to helm a system that at least has a chance at coherence, even if it raises the stakes for the next governor to deliver.
For years — decades, really — streamlining the governing structure of schools “has been proposed by Republicans and Democrats and bipartisan and nonpartisan commissions,” Linda Darling-Hammond told me. She’s a professor emeritus at Stanford University, an advisor to the governor and, by any measure, one of the preeminent education policy experts in the country.
“It’s not at all political. It is really about making the system run well,” she said. “The world is changing, the economy is changing. There’s just a need to be very efficient and effective in making policy and then implementing that policy.”
“Run well” is the key there. California operates the biggest and most diverse school system in the country. We’ve got roughly 10,000 regular schools (depending on how you count), including about 1,200 charter schools, around 1,00 school districts and 58 counties, each with their own slice of local control over those schools, according to the Department of Education.
That’s about 5.7 million students, nearly 300,000 teachers and $150 billion in costs (counting the new funding in the next budget).
To be kind, this system does not always run well. That’s in no small part because oversight and control are fragmented, overlapping and confusing. Currently, the State Board of Education sets policies, but the elected superintendent implements them through the Department of Education. Then control runs downhill to individual school districts, filtering through local school boards and even principals.
The board can’t control how the superintendent does their job, and vice versa. In fact, they don’t always agree, despite (or because of) the shotgun wedding nature of their relationship. At times, it can feel like they are working against each other. Never mind the complexities of local control.
This has been especially true in recent years as Newsom and the Legislature have pushed through big changes, such as the new prekindergarten grade, that have required massive coordination and effort. At the local level, administrators often complain there is little clarity on what is expected of them and, too often, outright conflict.
“The idea of having policy in one place and implementation in the other is really crazy,” Michael Kirst told me. He’s professor emeritus of education at Stanford and the longest-serving president of California’s State Board of Education, serving under both of Jerry Brown’s gubernatorial stints.
Newsom’s proposed system promises “much clearer, cleaner accountability,” Kirst said.
Expertise counts
It also has the benefit of putting an actual education expert in charge of schools. Because the superintendent role is elected, it has too often been coveted by career politicians looking for a landing spot. Its incumbent, Tony Thurmond, had a background in social work before running for various offices, but that kind of experience isn’t always the case. Neither is experience running a major organization with thousands of employees.
While Newsom’s plan leaves many, if not most, of the details to be ironed out later (a frustrating strategy he’s used more than once to keep the ball rolling on policy without having the drag of actual detail), it does promise to put in someone with the kind of high-level educational policy experience that should be required when managing this vast and important endeavor.
Kirst points out that this will be a “powerful position” charged with making sure our schools are indeed run well, and at the end of the day, it gives us one person to blame if they don’t: the governor.
So if schools don’t improve and our kids don’t learn, voters will know exactly who failed.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
A plane passenger has sparked outrage after refusing to move from another traveller’s assigned seat – before hitting them with a blunt five-word response that left people stunned
She slammed the entitled plane passenger (stock)(Image: Getty Images)
Taking to Reddit, the passenger explained how they politely pointed out the mistake, only to be wrongly told they had the aisle seat instead. They said: “I booked a window seat (27A) on my flight. When I got there, two women were already sitting in my row. I politely told them I had 27A, and one of them goes, ‘No, this is 27C, the window seat. 27A is the aisle’.”
Unsure who was correct, the passenger briefly sat in the aisle seat before asking a flight attendant to confirm the seating plan.
They added: “I was a bit confused, so I double-checked after sitting down briefly in the aisle seat and asked a flight attendant. She confirmed that 27A was, in fact, the window seat.”
After returning to the row and politely explaining the mix-up, the passenger was met with an unexpected response.
They said: “Her response was, ‘For f***’s sake, what are you so desperate to sit by the window for?’
“I told her calmly that I’d paid for that seat.”
Rather than apologising or moving, the woman hit back with a five-word defence.
“She snaps back, ‘We all paid for it,’ and still refuses to move,” the passenger said.
Fortunately, the flight attendant had witnessed the exchange and quickly stepped in.
They recalled: “The flight attendant is right there witnessing everything and says, ‘It’s her seat. If she wants to sit there, she will’.
“Only then did the woman finally move, but the attitude the whole time was unbelievable. No apology, no basic respect – just pure entitlement.”
Frustrated by the encounter, the passenger added: “Honestly, I don’t get how people can act like that over something so straightforward. If it’s not your seat, just move. It’s not that deep.”
Commenting on the post, one user said: “I remember when they said people had to sit in their assigned seat so they could be identified in an accident.”
Another user added: “My preference is short flight give me window, long flight give me aisle. I have a small bladder. But if that all goes out the window if someone is in the seat I paid for.
“Ask to switch and maybe I’ll be willing to sit in my seat and refuse to move or expect me to switch? Nah I’m standing on business. Sit in the seat you paid for.”
A third user said: “I like the aisle and window but I would have definitely made her move with that disposition!”
One more user added: “It’s rude and it is not allowed. You sit in the correct seat period. They just wanted to take your seat. That’s where the flight attendants come in and say move it.”
SAN RAFAEL, Calif. — Jared Huffman was unstinting and unbowed as he raised an arm heavenward. Not for fear of a thunderbolt hurtling through the blue sky and, punitively, creasing his skull. Rather, he was illustrating a point.
“I believe in a lot of things,” he said over a tuna melt at a small Marin County cafe. “I just don’t believe in magic and a sky god that looks like an old bearded man sitting just beyond the clouds.”
Huffman is the rare American — one of only about 10% or so — who flatly state they do not believe in God, or any higher power for that matter. What makes him rarer still is his place in Congress. Huffman, who represents a sprawling slice of Northern California, reaching from the Bay Area to the Oregon border, is one of just four members (out of more than 500) who are openly agnostic or religiously unaffiliated.
He is, by far, the most outspoken.
Huffman, who publicly revealed his nonreligious status in 2017, helped form the Congressional Freethought Caucus, which consists of about three dozen members of various religious stripe, each dedicated to the proposition that church and state should be distinct. He’s written a book, due out next month, raising an alarm and summoning Americans to fight the rising tide of Christian nationalism roiling our divided land.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and other analysts cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
An overwhelming favorite to win an eighth congressional term in November, Huffman, a Democrat, calls himself a humanist and described it this way:
“To me, it means good without God. It means you don’t need the inducement or fear of an afterlife to have a moral framework and to know your place in the universe. You’re sort of at peace with the reality that, as far as we know, this is it. You get one time around.
Rep. Jared Huffman, right, greets Marin County Executive Derek Johnson during the opening of a housing community in Point Reyes Station, Calif., on Wednesday.
(Godofredo A. Vasquez / For The Times)
“There are people of faith who sometimes think, well, that must be sad, that must be incomplete,” Huffman went on. “I find it’s just the opposite. It makes this world and our opportunity to be part of it more sacred.”
Growing up in the Mormon faith
Huffman, 62, grew up in a religious household in Independence, Mo. His family practiced an offshoot of the Mormon faith; as a youth, Huffman served in the priesthood.
He began to question the church and its teachings when his father died of lung cancer at age 56. Huffman was 19 and enrolled at UC Santa Barbara on a full-ride volleyball scholarship. (A lean 6-foot-3, Huffman was a three-time NCAA All-American and is a member of the school’s athletic hall of fame.)
“I think in hindsight ignorant faith kept me from coming to terms with the fact that he was dying, and it made it way more traumatic than it should have been,” Huffman said of his father’s passing. “I didn’t really own up to the reality of what was happening, because I was this person of faith who thought rotten things would never happen to me and my father.”
Share via
Shaken, Huffman spent years in a period of reflection and deep study — of various religions, spirituality, the Bible, which he can cite chapter and verse — before landing in his place of humanism and nonconformity.
After earning a law degree at Boston College, Huffman moved to the Bay Area and served as a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, the environmental group. His political career began in 1994 with his election to the Marin Municipal Water District. Huffman served for 12 years, until his election to the state Assembly. He won his congressional seat in 2012.
Huffman’s secularism never came up, he said, until his arrival in Washington, where religiosity, God-fearing and worship of a higher power are taken as articles of faith.
“All of a sudden, religion is all around you and everyone wants to know your religion,” Huffman said. “I knew that I was a nonbeliever. I knew that I was a humanist. But that was a very private thing and I had kind of intended to keep it that way.”
Losing his religion
Two things changed.
First, Huffman’s mother died at age 87. She was fervently religious, Huffman said, and “I didn’t really want to break her heart and tell her how deep my nonbelief actually was.” (In his book, Huffman recounts an awkward scene where he takes the congressional oath of office for the first time on a hastily borrowed Bible, to please his proud mom.)
The second factor was the ascent of Trump, riding a wave of ardent evangelical support.
Huffman was put off by the hypocrisy of such a blasphemous presidentsurrounding himself with extremists using the language and symbols of religious faith to enact what he perceived, and perceives, as a distinctly antidemocratic, un-American agenda.
“I was always uncomfortable with the way I saw religion encroaching into government in Washington,” Huffman said. “My previous concerns were heightened by an order of magnitude because of what he did.”
Ignoring the counsel of family, friends and political advisors who, to a person, warned against it, Huffman revealed his religious disbelief in a series of statements and interviews in November 2017. At the time, the only member of Congress to ever publicly come out as an atheist was Rep. Pete Stark, who announced his sentiments in 2007; though the Fremont Democrat was reelected twice, he was eventually defeated by a Democratic rival who turned his lack of faith against him.
Huffman braced for political blowback. There was none, though he’s gotten death threats and plenty of admonishments he’s bound for Hell.
(Meantime, the congressional ranks of the religiously unaffiliated have grown to include Democratic Reps. Yassamin Ansari of Arizona and Emily Randall of Washington and Republican Rep. Abraham Hamadeh of Arizona.)
In the first election after his announcement, Huffman was returned to Washington with 77% of the vote. He’s won reelection three times since, with never less than 72% support. “It turns out [constituents] don’t much care what my religion is if I’m doing good work,” Huffman said, “and that’s pretty great in my opinion.”
He underscored the sentiment with a hearty bite of his tuna melt.
The book Huffman has coming out next month — with chapters that include “Breaking Faith,” “Christian Privilege” and “Christian Zionism” — is a work that explains his personal evolution and expresses a dire fear the country is headed, if unchecked, toward a system of authoritarian theocracy.
He describes the Christian nationalism that informed the attempted coup on Jan. 6, 2021, and explains the biblical prophecies behind the messianic support among some Trumpian true-believers.
“The book is not so much about humanism,” Huffman said. “It is about the fight to protect our secular democracy, which, I think, is the bedrock of America as we know it.”
The dedication reads, “For everyone who refuses to bow.”
The panel swiftly turned their focus to England’s FIFA World Cup victory over Mexico in the early hours of the morning. Jude Bellingham scored twice in 98 seconds to put England ahead, before Julian Quinones pulled one back for Mexico just three minutes before the break.
The drama continued, as Jarell Quansah was shown a red card after 54 minutes for a high challenge on Jesus Gallardo, with both sides subsequently converting a penalty each.
While chatting about the match, Vogue confessed that she and her husband, Spencer Matthews, had made “one of the worst” parenting decisions that morning, reports the Irish Mirror.
She said: “I did not stay up but my husband decided to watch it with the kids this morning and it was not as harmonious as your house [talking to Charlene].
“One of the worst decisions we’ve ever made, because we have such small ones and they all get a turn. So, my son was throwing a wobbly that he hadn’t had his turn on the TV while they’re trying to watch it. So, it wasn’t great this morning actually.”
While Vogue found watching the match with her young children, Theodore, Gigi and Otto, rather testing, Charlene had quite a contrasting experience with her eight-year-old son, Alfie.
“We were all very excited about it so Alfie wanted to stay up and [I was like], ‘Absolutely not, you’re eight years old,'” she explained.
“But what we did is he woke up at six so he could watch the whole thing, [and] if there was loads of extra time and penalties, he would have time to watch that before going to school. So, all phones were off. The TV was definitely on iPlayer to make sure they definitely didn’t suddenly see the result, and he was really excited on the sofa at 6am.”
Meanwhile, Coleen revealed that she had attempted to stay up until 1am, but drifted back off to sleep upon discovering the match had been pushed back by an hour.
“I thought, ‘I can’t do it,’ so I kind of fell back to sleep,” she said, before disclosing that she had watched the entire second half.
“They were just unbelievable… It was so exciting, what a match,” she added.
Elsewhere in the episode, the stars opened up about the difficulties they’ve encountered after their children flew the nest for the first time, with Vogue expressing her anxiety about the prospect of her own kids eventually being old enough to move out.
“Even the thought of them going is just heartbreaking to me. I want to be the mum with the house that everyone wants to come to and they all want to spend time with us,” she said.
Loose Women airs weekdays on ITV1 and ITVX at 12.30pm
SACRAMENTO — Could the Declaration of Independence be signed today by this crop of political leaders, particularly the one who occupies and defaces the White House?
Not just sign, but sincerely mean it.
Especially the guy who bangs a wrecking ball against the historic East Wing to make room for an incongruous ballroom monstrosity, who mars the sacred Oval Office with gold glitter and paves over the lovely Rose Garden.
But never mind these displays of egotism and tackiness that currently blemish landmarks throughout the nation’s capital, including the National Mall, traditional site of the annual July Fourth fireworks.
Back to my central question: Would there be enough patriots today to affix their John Hancocks to a rebellious document that bravely concludes:
“For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
Political leaders would very likely sign the more famous preamble that includes this passage, widely regarded as the most important sentence in American history:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Those words probably would poll well and make salable talking points in local town halls. Even if the notion that all people are created equal would be recognized, as it was 250 years ago, as merely a lofty, hypocritical pie-in-the-sky goal. After all, the eloquent document’s principal author, Thomas Jefferson, owned 600 slaves.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
We’ve made a world of progress since then on equality. But clearly President Trump and much of America today don’t agree that all people are created equal and guaranteed the same right, for example, of due process in court. People such as undocumented immigrants — the tired, the poor and the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
But that’s a heated and politicized 250-year-old debate that will continue indefinitely.
For me, the most striking and sincere sentence in the Declaration of Independence is the last one, in which 56 delegates to the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776, unanimously pledged “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.”
“It was not a throwaway line,” notes UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar. “It was an acknowledgment that they were committing treason. It showed how deeply committed they were.”
The nation’s founders understood that in British King George III’s view, they were traitors. And if their rebellion failed, they’d be targets for execution.
“We must indeed all hang together or most assuredly we shall all hang separately,” Benjamin Franklin supposedly told delegates.
In fact, nine of the signers died during the Revolutionary War from disease, prison hardships or combat wounds.
An estimated 6,800 U.S. soldiers died in combat and more than 8,500 were wounded. An additional 17,000 Americans perished.
Several signers sacrificed their fortunes, some to help pay for the war.
Gen. George Washington — an immensely rich Virginia planter — refused to accept a salary as commander in chief of the Continental Army. He bought much of the ammunition and fighting gear himself, then was reimbursed after the war.
Sacred honor? That meant what it said back then. The revolutionary leaders proved their character with sacrifice and bravery.
The nation’s first president, Washington, could not tell a lie, according to myth. Of course, he routinely lied during the war to deceive the British. But our 47th president, Donald Trump, is a pathological liar who seems to prevaricate daily.
Would Trump pledge his fortune to the cause of liberty?
That’s hard to imagine of a president who uses the office to promote and prosper from his own brand name. And whose income ballooned to $2.2 billion in 2025, his first year back in the White House after being booted by voters in 2020, a humiliation he still doesn’t have the integrity to acknowledge.
“President Trump is using the office to enrich himself and his family in ways we’ve never seen before,” Chemerinsky asserts.
Pledge his life? Please!
This is a man who once faked bone spurs to avoid the military draft. OK, he wasn’t the only young fellow who dodged combat in the unnecessary Vietnam War, which claimed the lives of 58,000 Americans.
But Trump has called America’s war dead “suckers” and “losers,” according to former aides. He denies it.
There’s no question he expressed contempt for the late Sen. John McCain, who spent more than five years as a North Vietnamese prisoner. “He’s not a war hero,” Trump said. “I like people who weren’t captured.”
The Declaration of Independence was about severing the chains of a British monarchy and creating a government powered by the people with checks and balances.
Trump has attempted — often successfully — to govern as a monarch, ignoring the checks and balances of Congress and the judiciary. He has gotten away with it because bullied Republican congressional leaders have mostly rolled over like lapdogs.
But we may be seeing the early signs of a mild revolt against the king as Trump sinks further in the polls and we draw closer to the November elections.
That’s sort of what the founders had in mind: a government deriving its power “from the consent of the governed.” And when citizens are subjected to “absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.”
So could the Declaration be signed today? Hard to say. There’s no King George hovering over us. Only a wannabe king.
But, yes, I suspect there’d be a signing. Independence is a dominant gene in America’s DNA.
After years of closure due to war, hospitals in the Sudanese capital are welcoming mothers again, despite lingering economic and logistical hurdles.
Published On 6 Jul 20266 Jul 2026
In the Sudanese city of Omdurman, the maternity hospital, known locally as Al-Dayat or ‘Midwives” in English, has resumed operations after a long closure caused by the war. Mothers are once again arriving at maternity wards, navigating difficult economic and logistical conditions to give birth safely.
Al-Toma Jabara, a mother from East Nile, gave birth to her daughter, Doaa, at the hospital two days ago. She told Al Jazeera that she was unable to conceive during the war years. Fighting between the Sudanese armed forces and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) separated Jabara from her husband for two years.
She has lived under constant bombardment and clashes in her home, making a normal family life seem impossible. She described Doaa’s arrival as a “new beginning” for her family after years of fear and deprivation.
At Bahri Hospital, Fatima Abdel Rahman, a mother from Al Jazirah state, recounted her exhausting and expensive journey to the capital Khartoum. Her family had to spend a large portion of their income on transportation and temporary accommodation near the facility to monitor her condition post-delivery.
Abdel Rahman noted that medication shortages forced her to buy basic drugs from outside pharmacies at inflated prices, adding to her financial burden. However, she stressed that the functioning maternity ward provided her with a vital sense of safety, sparing her the fear of dying due to lack of medical care – a constant dread she lived with during the war.
Rebuilding the shattered health sector
During the conflict, the closure of specialised maternity hospitals forced many women to undergo unsafe home births or travel long distances, drastically increasing risks for both mothers and infants. An anonymous official from the Khartoum State Ministry of Health confirmed that maternal and infant complications and mortality rates surged during the war due to closures.
The Neonatal Department at Omdurman Maternity Hospital is the largest of its kind in Sudan [Mohammed Mirghani/Al Jazeera]
The official told Al Jazeera that complication rates are now gradually decreasing as services resume. The health ministry has repaired and reopened 15 maternity wards across the capital, including Al-Dayat and the Saudi Hospital. The capital’s hospitals are now recording a significant increase in births, reaching about 7,000 new deliveries per month.
Emad Abdullah, director of the Omdurman Maternity Hospital, noted that it initially received only one or two cases a day upon reopening. Today, that number has climbed to approximately 60 births per day, as services expand to meet growing demand.
The hospital has several vital departments, including a caesarean section, an intensive care unit and a neonatal department equipped with about 140 incubators, making it the largest in Sudan.
Rising costs and logistical nightmares
Maternity costs vary significantly depending on the facility. At government hospitals, a natural birth typically costs about 130,000 Sudanese pounds ($216), while C-sections cost around 400,000 pounds ($666). In private hospitals, the cost of a natural birth shoots up to approximately 500,000 pounds ($813) and C-sections range between 600-800,000 pounds ($999-1,322), depending on the service level.
Despite the reopening of wards in Khartoum, Omdurman and Bahri, large challenges remain with patients from distant regions such as Al Jazirah and Kordofan facing exhausting journeys and exorbitant transport costs.
In the hospitals, there is a shortage of basic medicines and emergency rooms often operate beyond their capacity. In addition, the wartime exodus of doctors and nurses has left a critical gap in qualified staff, while essential medical equipment needs regular maintenance to keep up with demand.
Amira Othman Abdel Majeed, an infection control officer at Bahri Hospital, described the war as the most challenging period for the health sector, marred by severe shortages of supplies, electricity and water. That has imposed psychological pressure on medical staff who feared losing mothers and children during treatment.
However, she said the “liberation of Khartoum” and the resumption of maternity services have dramatically changed the landscape. Staff emerged stronger and more resilient, with the ongoing medical care serving as a prime symbol of the capital’s recovering health sector.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer formally apologized Thursday to women and their children caught up in a historic forced adoptions scandal in England and Wales over an almost three-decade long period between the 1950s and 1970s. File Photo Betty Laura Zapata/EPA
July 2 (UPI) — Outgoing British Prime Minister Keir Starmer apologized in person Thursday to women and some of their children who were caught up in a historic forced adoptions scandal in England and Wales dating back to the 1950s through the 1970s.
Stamer issued a formal apology on behalf of the British state, calling the taking of an estimated 185,000 babies from unmarried women, railroaded into allowing their children to be put up for adoption, a “stain on our history.”
The shame is not yours. The shame was never yours. The shame is ours,” he said in a statement to the House of Commons after earlier hosting a group of survivors in Downing Street.
“Mothers, many young, vulnerable, and without support were coerced, bullied, or misled into feeling that they had no choice but to have their children taken away from them. What a thing to do,” he said.
Speaking as some of those whose lives were severely impacted watched on from the public gallery, Starmer said that what happened to them and to tens of thousands of mothers, children and families “should never have happened.”
“It is a stain on our history,” he said.
Starmer said the victims had “very powerfully” relayed to him the “gut-wrenching” shame they were made to feel and how it was drummed into them that they were immoral young women whose children would be better off without them.
The experiences stayed with them through their lifetimes, while their children grew up believing they were unwanted, he said.
“We are deeply and profoundly sorry to the mothers who were told they were unfit, who were prevented from caring for the children they desperately wanted to help and to keep, and who have carried this loss for decades,” said Starmer.
Starmer acknowledged that the practice was deliberate and widespread, particularly between 1949 and 1976 when it was, he said, “embedded within systems across local authorities, across voluntary and faith-based institutions, and in health and social care services,” including parts of what is now the National Health Service.
“All institutions that operated with power over people’s lives, yet they did so without compassion, without consent, and without dignity or proper safeguards,” said Starmer.
He said some women, including those placed in Mother and Baby Homes and other institutions, were prevented from seeing their families and partners, denied education and job opportunities and kept in harsh living conditions.
Some of the treatment meted out to the women was tantamount to manipulation and abuse, said Starmer.
Mothers and adoptees campaigned for years for the state to acknowledge wrongdoing but no offer of compensation was forthcoming, although the government has announced a $5.3 million fund to improve access to adoption records and assist family reunions.
Survivor Ann Keen, whose baby son was adopted in 1966 after she was sent to a mother and baby home in Swansea in Wales at the age of 17, told the BBC she had “no say” in the decision.
The former Member of Parliament in the ruling Labour Party, told BBC Radio ahead of Starmer’s statement to lawmakers that she was eagerly anticipating the moment she would finally be “released from my shame.”
Chances are, right about now, you’re considering how you’d like to spend this upcoming Fourth of July weekend. At the beach, maybe, at a barbecue or whatever place sets fireworks pinwheeling through your holiday-happy mind.
Every two years, in the spring and fall, California holds an election. Every two years the state faces an outraged chorus, voices raised nationwide, decrying the length of time it takes to tally the millions of ballots cast and, in a handful of races, determine the winner.
Share via
Then, just as suddenly, the din fades away, the focus shifts and the election process is forgotten until the next round of howling protest.
Just that word, process, can throttle and snuff the life out of the subject.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and other analysts cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
So it’s good news that lawmakers in Sacramento have used this inattentive time to address the biennial hullabaloo and perhaps shut some people up.
The budget that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Monday includes an additional $40 million aimed at speeding up California’s vote count, and even if the sum is less than half the $90 million sought by reform-minded advocates, it’s something.
Most of the money will go toward staffing, technology and equipment upgrades. Another $10 million will pay for voter education and outreach. A further $750,000 will be used to combat election misinformation. (A $3.50 roll of duct tape would be a far more economical way to address the latter were it applied to the inciteful mouth of America’s election-denier-in-chief. More about him in a moment.)
“While the amount budgeted is less than we had recommended, it still represents a sizable investment that prioritizes timely election results,” said Kim Alexander, head of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, which has been at the forefront of election reform efforts in the state.
A surprise Supreme Court decision
As it happens, the budgetary infusion came the same day the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of states to count mail ballots that are postmarked by election day, even if they arrive days afterward. In California, where most voters mail their ballots, that lag time can be up to a week.
It was a surprise decision from this most Trump-obeisant court, a setback for the petulant president and a ruling that will have very little effect on California’s prolonged vote counting.
That’s because those late-arriving ballots have very little to do with the time it takes to complete the count. My colleague Kevin Rector reported that in 2024 California tallied more than 406,000 late-arriving mail ballots — which represents only about 2.5% of the more than 16 million ballots cast. The long count is a result of the huge number of ballots placed in drop boxes or arriving at processing facilities on or just before election day — and, really, is it such a bad thing for voters to watch for late developments before letting go of their ballot?
Lawmakers in California made a purposeful decision that voting should be convenient and not a chore, as a way to to encourage the greatest turnout possible. That’s a good thing if you believe in our system of representative democracy. The voice of the people, and all that.
There wasn’t much hue or cry — especially about mail balloting, which has exploded in popularity and introduces all sorts of time-consuming steps, such as signature verification — until Trump cried fraud and made other specious claims. That’s what happens when you have a sore, whiny loser astride the bully pulpit; Trump is perfectly willing to torch people of good faith and burn working systems to the ground if it salves his eggshell ego.
An election, not a soccer match
Many political commentators are complicit in Trump’s arson.
Awaiting California’s election results, they act like pouty birthday children forced to leave their presents unopened until all the kids have had their cake. They speak of voters losing faith in the election process without explaining the commendable reason for the delay — seeking maximum voter participation — or acknowledging how their impatience contributes to the sense that something wrong is afoot.
Hang out with family and friends. Enjoy some barbecue. Watch fireworks paint the night sky. There’s plenty of time for speechifying, TV ads and campaign mailers to blitz the state between now and the election on Nov. 3.
For years, India’s Muslim women have been subject to online abuse.
Now researchers warn that generative AI is taking that harassment to a new level, making it easier to create fake sexualised imagery and propaganda targeting Muslim women.
FRANKIE Bridge has revealed she’s been diagnosed with ADHD after her Loose Women co-star Denise Welch spotted the symptoms and urged her to get tested.
The 37-year-old has previously been open about her battle with depression and anxiety and now she believes she’s found the “last missing piece” with her attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnosis.
Sign up for the Showbiz newsletter
Thank you!
Frankie Bridge has revealed she’s been diagnosed with ADHDCredit: GettyShe revealed she went and got tested after her Loose Women co-star Denise Welch spotted symptomsCredit: Shutterstock Editorial
Speaking on her latest YouTube vlog, the former Saturdays star told her viewers: “I found out today that I’ve got ADHD.
“Denise was like, ‘I got diagnosed with ADHD and it’s completely changed my life – my depression and my anxiety is so much better’.
She was like, ‘let me put you in touch with [a specialist]. You can just see’. I was a bit like, ‘yeah, I mean, I could be’.”
The mum-of-two continued: “I’ve been battling with [the diagnosis] all day. Part of me is like, what a relief, because it does make sense to me.
“When I went on the call, I was not sure if this was going to really resonate with me. But by the end of it, I was like, ‘f***, it really does’.
“It’s kind of reassuring. Not that it makes excuses for it, but I can hopefully try and feel less guilt because I’m such a perfectionist, and all that is part of it.”
According to the NHS, those with ADHD are significantly more likely to experience depression and anxiety.
ADHD itself can cause emotional dysregulation, making individuals more prone to intense emotions and making it harder to soothe themselves when feeling down or worried.
The I’m A Celebrity star added: “Hopefully this is the last missing piece that is going to help.
“They do say with a lot of women, we’re not diagnosed ’til we’re a lot older, and by then, you’ve already dealt with depression and anxiety for a really long time.”
Her fans flocked to the comments section on YouTube to commend her on her bravery as some related to her diagnosis.
One penned: “I recently got diagnosed with adhd too and so much makes sense now.”
Frankie shared the news on her recent YouTube vlogCredit: YouTube/Frankie BridgeShe told her viewers that the diagnosis was a “relief”Credit: YouTube/Frankie Bridge
Another person said: “Awww love your vids. Love your vulnerability.”
While a third added: “Thanks for another great vlog and thanks for being you.”
Denise was diagnosed with ADHD herself in January 2023 after undergoing a series of intense tests.
Incidentally, Denise went to get tested after her Loose Women co-star Nadia Sawalha received her own diagnosis and saw similar traits in her.
Frankie has previously been open about her struggles with depression and anxietyCredit: Shutterstock EditorialShe often shares when she’s strugglingCredit: YouTube/Frankie Bridge
Frankie has previously stated that she was “anxious from the womb” and experienced physical symptoms including stomach aches, night time panic and difficulty breathing.
Her depression began to manifest significantly when she was 15, coinciding with her first brush with fame in S Club Juniors.
In 2011, at the height of her success in The Saturdays, Frankie suffered a major mental health breakdown.
She voluntarily admitted herself into a private psychiatric hospital for treatment for one month.
It’s something the ITV star has continued to deal with on daily basis but has used her platform to help other people who are experiencing the same as her.
In March last year, she told her Instagram followers: “I have finally made it down to the gym. It’s taken me the whole day to actually get here.
What is ADHD?
ADHD, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, is a neurodevelopmental condition that affects how individuals focus, regulate their impulses, and manage their energy levels.
Symptoms depend on the type; inattention causes challenges with focusing, organisation and time management, hyperactivity causes excessive energy or restlessness, and impulsivity causes a person to act without thinking or struggle to wait their turn.
People can be predominately one type or a mix of the two and symptoms are varied and unique to individuals.
While living with ADHD is challenging, people often find unique strengths within their condition, such as the ability to hyperfocus on something they find interesting, problem-solving skills and creativity.
“My depression is absolutely kicking my a**e, and I’m so over it. You know when you just feel like you do all the things you’re told you’re meant to do, and then it just still always comes back?
“I’m just so bored of myself. It is so boring. You know when you just think everyone around me must just be so bored of it as well, and I just I’m over it.”
“But I’m here,” she added. “I’m going to try and do as much as I can in the gym, because I know it will make me feel better.
“Instead of just sitting around, eating s**t, which is what I’ve been doing all day, which only makes me feel worse and I know that, so I don’t know why I do it, but here we are back in the same old place.”
The US Supreme Court has ruled that states can ban transgender women from competing in female school and college sports.
The court considered cases from students in two different states who had challenged bans on participation. The two states, Idaho and West Virginia, enacted laws that required public school and college sports teams to compete in accordance with their sex recorded at birth.
One of the two challenges said the ban violates equal rights protections in the US Constitution. The other said it contradicts civil rights laws.
More than two dozen states have enacted bans since Idaho did so in 2020.
Under those state bans, a transgender woman – a biological male who identifies as a woman – is not permitted to compete in female sports at schools and colleges.
All nine justices on the court decided the state bans do not violate a civil rights law called Title IX which prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools.
But the judges were split along ideological lines on whether the bans contravene the constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.
The six conservative justices said it did not violate the constitution but the three liberal justices disagreed.
“The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh who authored the ruling.
In her partial dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority opinion had applied “a diminished view of equal protection” to sports.
The challenge launched in Idaho came from a transgender woman, Lindsay Hecox, a long distance runner, who lodged it shortly after the law was enacted. She was later granted an injunction by both a district court and an appeals court.
State lawmaker Barbara Ehardt, who introduced the law, said at the time of its passing that it would ensure “boys and men will not be able to take the place of girls and women in sports because it’s not fair”.
But in the appeals ruling, a panel of three judges found that the Idaho law violated constitutional rights. They said the state had failed to provide evidence that its ban protects “sex equality and opportunity for women athletes”.
President Donald Trump made the issue of transgender athletes in women’s sports a regular focus of his 2024 election campaign. Last year, he signed an executive order that aimed to ban transgender women from competing on female sports teams in schools and colleges.
Following that decision, the NCAA, the governing body for US college sports, banned transgender women from competing in women’s sports.
Supporters of the bans argued that transgender women had a biological advantage over athletes who were recorded female at birth.
When the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced in March it was going to limit the women’s category of Olympic sports to biological females, it said its working group reviewed the latest scientific evidence over the previous 18 months and had concluded there was a “clear consensus”, external that “male sex provides a performance advantage in all sports and events that rely on strength, power and resistance” .
Those who opposed the bans argue that they unfairly discriminated against transgender students and dispute whether there is a scientific consensus that transgender women and girls have an inherent advantage.
SACRAMENTO — President Trump was handed a golden opportunity to upstage Gov. Gavin Newsom in Newsom’s own state on an issue of critical importance to Americans everywhere. But Trump naturally blew it.
Trump was victimized by his own self-centered obstinance and inhumanity. And Republican congressional leaders were left looking embarrassed and wimpy.
The issue was housing affordability — the lack of it that is stifling the American dream of homeownership everywhere, not just in California.
In Sacramento, the Legislature lopsidedly passed an $11.25-billion bond proposal aimed primarily at providing government subsidies for building affordable housing. Newsom immediately signed the measure last week, just beating the deadline for getting it on the Nov. 3 election ballot.
“In California, we don’t turn away from the needs of our people,” Newsom boasted in a prepared statement, taking a veiled shot at Trump, his favorite political target.
This came just after both houses of Congress, with members working collaboratively in a rare bipartisan manner, overwhelmingly passed a landmark bill aimed at boosting housing supply. The measure removed regulatory barriers, upgraded federal programs and incentivized new home building.
A Trump “promise kept,” the White House proclaimed.
Whoops! The president then suddenly flip-flopped. He canceled a planned bill-signing ceremony, torpedoing the legislation, an opportunity to gain sorely-needed points for the GOP heading into the fall elections and a chance to outboast Newsom, arguably his most annoying political antagonist.
Trump said he wouldn’t sign the housing bill unless Congress approved his unrelated voter ID legislation, which has practically no chance of passage. The least of his concerns seemed to be struggling homebuyers and renters.
As of this writing, it wasn’t clear what Trump would ultimately do. Nothing ever is certain with him. Shocked and confused GOP congressional leaders even held back sending the president the bill, then ducked out on holiday recess.
At the California state Capitol, by contrast, the governor and legislative leaders were united, working off the same page and successfully negotiating a final agreement on housing help.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
But the remaining $10 billion would need to be paid off by taxpayers over 30 years — at an estimated $580 million annually, bringing the total bond cost to about $17.4 billion, including interest.
Putting this in perspective, the Legislature just passed a $352-billion state budget for the fiscal year starting July 1. Of that, $7.5 billion will go for retiring debt on $73 billion in bonds. And the state has voter authorization to sell $38 billion more in bonds.
During legislative floor debates, some Republicans objected to the additional borrowing.
“We’ve got record revenue, why do we need to borrow money?” asked Assemblyman David Tangipa (R-Fresno).
That was answered during the Senate debate by Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-West Sacramento), one of the measure’s principal jockeys.
Building affordable housing “simply is impossible, it can’t be done without this bond” to finance government subsidies, Cabaldon told colleagues.
Developers are subsidized so they can build at a cost that will result in affordable consumer prices, mainly rents in this case.
Some Republicans also objected to inserting the CalVet money for voter appeal. Assemblyman Carl DeMaio called it “window dressing.”
CalVet funds normally are acquired through very small, separate bond measures.
But in the end, only a few Republicans voted against the big bond, which was officially authored by the Assembly Speaker and the Senate leader to display political muscle.
To their credit, the Legislature and governor in recent years have been whittling away at regulatory obstacles to home building. But many cities still balk at rezoning residential neighborhoods to make room for new multifamily dwellings.
The bond proposal is mainly designed to generate affordable rentals for poor people. More money was added at the end for affordable student and farmworker housing.
There’ll be a separate bond proposal on the November ballot that goes in a different direction but doesn’t conflict. It would help middle class homebuyers. And that measure wouldn’t cost taxpayers a cent.
“Housing supply is not just about poor people. It’s not just about homelessness,” says the middle class initiative’s originator, former legislative leader Bob Hertzberg, a Los Angeles County Democrat.
Under the plan, a homebuyer could borrow most of the money needed for a down payment on a newly constructed single-family home or condo. Typically, a 20% down payment is required. Under Hertzberg’s proposal, 17% could be borrowed. Regular lending institutions would arrange the second mortgage.
To be eligible, a homebuyer’s income could not exceed 200% of the area’s median income. In L.A. County, that would be around $213,000 for a family of four, Hertzberg figures. The home would need to be the owner’s primary residence.
The November ballot will be bursting with state propositions — 14 in all, mostly very complex, running the gamut. Besides housing, there’ll be proposals for a billionaires tax, voter ID requirement, local tax limitations and fast-tracking of public works.
Voters could just throw up their hands and reject everything.
“At some point, voters are just gonna say, ‘I don’t know about all this stuff. There’s a lot of stuff,’” says Dan Dunmoyer, who heads the California Building Industry Assn.
California’s housing affordability crunch won’t be solved by just two bond packages. But they’d help.
We and all of America could also use some help from our seemingly unconcerned president, who enjoys free public housing.
THIS summer’s celebrity trend isn’t a snatched waistline or even a peachy backside.
It’s the ‘11-line abs’ – a pair of razor sharp lines running down the stomach.
Myleene Klass tries to show off razor sharp lines running down her stomachCredit: Instagram/FreemansJodie Comer flaunting her honed stomachCredit: Getty
A host of stars, including Jodie Comer, Zendaya and Maura Higgins, have been proudly proving the magic number is 11 by flaunting their honed stomachs.
It’s an enviable look that screams gruelling hours at the gym and super-low body fat.
Until now, the number 11 was something women dreaded as it referred to the pair of lines that form between the eyebrows through frowning.
Now, however, 11 has become the ultimate badge of fitness — 11-line abs are created by the natural gap between the six-pack muscles (rectus abdominis) and the abdomen’s side muscles (obliques).
Towie’s Amber Turner shows off her figureCredit: Raw Image LtdMaura Higgins attends Sports Illustrated Swimsuit DinnerCredit: Getty
While it may have once been tacky to show off your naked waist, this year people are exhibiting their defined midriffs everywhere — not just at the beach or the gym but on the red carpet, too.
Earlier this month, actress Jodie Comer looked sensational at a star-studded bash as she flashed her sculpted midriff in a black dress.
But if you think achieving this physique is as simple as jumping on fat jabs, you need to think again — it’s down to exercise and good nutrition, according to women’s fitness expert Shakira Akabusi.
“There isn’t a single magic exercise to achieve visible abs,” says mum-of-four Shakira.
Zendaya showed off her washboard in this black two-pieceCredit: SplashRosie Huntington-Whiteley posted this pic of her midriffCredit: rosiehw/Instagram
“But a great set of core exercises are planks, dead bugs, hanging knee raises and bicycles. Compound exercises like squats and deadlifts are also great.”
Although Shakira recommends a well-rounded diet, she says “a modest calorie deficit” is necessary to reduce body fat.
She adds: “Your abdominal muscles sit beneath a fat layer, so visible definition relies on overall body composition as well as building muscle.”
The expert emphasised that aesthetics and health shouldn’t be confused.
Olivia Wilde shows off her abdomenCredit: Shutterstock EditorialJennifer Lopez posted this gym selfie on InstaCredit: Instagram
“Visible ab definition is not a marker of health, and is down to many factors including genetics, hormones, body fat distribution, nutrition and even lighting.
Philip Doyle, who led Ireland to the Women’s Six Nations Grand Slam as head coach in 2013, has died aged 61.
He had two spells in the role, leading the side for three years after being appointed as Kevin West’s successor in 2003 before returning in 2010.
Doyle enjoyed success in the second stint as he steered Ireland to a first Six Nations Grand Slam in 2013, a first win over New Zealand and a fourth-placed finish at the 2014 World Cup.
He stood down after that tournament and went on to take over as Scotland women’s boss in 2019, but left that role a year later due to the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic.
He also had spells coaching Blackrock College women’s team and Ulster Rugby’s women’s team.
Leading tributes, Blackrock College said there was “profound sadness” and described Doyle, affectionately known as ‘Goose’, as “the most influential coach in the history of women’s rugby”.
The club added: “At Blackrock, Goose was far more than a list of achievements. He was a mentor, a friend, a storyteller, and a constant source of encouragement.
“He cared deeply about the people he coached. He gave players confidence, challenged them to be better, and reminded everyone around him why rugby is such a special game.”
“Few people have done more to advance the women’s game in Ireland and fewer still have done it with such charisma, warmth, humility and generosity of spirit.”
For years, Kitty Felde was a familiar voice on public radio in Southern California. Reporting from Capitol Hill, it was her job, she felt, to explain government to the grown-ups living thousands of miles away.
It could be frustrating, given how little many listeners seemed to know or understand about even the basics of Washington and how the place works. (Or, at least, how it’s supposed to work.)
“They don’t remember this stuff from fifth grade,” Felde said.
Worse, a lot of people didn’t seem to care.
So Felde wondered: What if her insights and expertise were aimed at a younger audience?
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and other political analysts cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
With her career in radio winding down, Felde set off in a new direction, writing a novel for young adults that combined sleuthing with civics; a blend of “Nancy Drew” and “The West Wing,” as Felde’s website described the result.
Set in Washington, the book’s main character was Fina Mendoza, a 10-year-old girl modeled after someone whom Felde, a Southern California native, mentored years ago while living and reporting in Los Angeles.
“She was fierce, smart, quiet, driven, even persuading her non-English-speaking mother to help her transfer to a better high school where she graduated with honors,” Felde told an interviewer when the book was published in 2019. In creating Fina Mendoza, “I imagined what [Felde’s mentee] must have been like when she was younger.”
For Mendoza’s father, or “Papa,” Felde envisioned someone she had gotten to know over the years covering California’s congressional delegation. Someone genial and soft-spoken who, lately, has been in the news quite a bit.
“He’s a widower,” Felde said of the fictional Arturo Mendoza, a Democratic congressman representing Los Angeles, as Becerra did for nearly a quarter of a century. “Xavier, obviously, is not. But I met his daughters, I met his wife. And so that image … I could see him being the father.”
When she conceived Arturo Mendoza, Felde said, “nobody knew who [Becerra] was” — which is only a slight exaggeration. Even now, many Californians are just becoming familiar with the Democrat, who is heavily favored to beat Republican Steve Hilton in November, given the state’s strong Democratic tilt.
A five-part series
That first novel about Fina and her exploits on Capitol Hill has expanded into a multi-volume series, published in English and Spanish, featuring the young detective and her roman à clef Papa. The fourth installment comes out next month. Felde is currently working on the fifth and, she expects, final volume.
Collectively, the works do not purport to offer “The Xavier Becerra Story.” Rather, each centers on a mystery — a bird that poops on the president during his State of the Union speech; a culprit placing snakes in the gym bags of lawmakers; a series of break-ins, fires and vandalism in the Montecito Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles, where Fina is home for the summer. The protagonist unravels each knot and, along the way, delivers readers a goodly dose of Government 101.
Felde has written four books in the Fina Mendoza Mystery Series and is working on the fifth and, she believes, final volume.
Speaking via Zoom from her home office in Baldwin Hills, Felde ventured a few thoughts on how Becerra would do as governor. (Which, of course, is also a mystery; at this point one can only guess.)
“We’re a big state with a lot of problems,” Felde said with a small shake of her head. “I think he’ll have a good time fighting the current administration. And I think, because he does have contacts both in Sacramento and in Washington … that can help because that’s where money’s coming from.”
The great divide
Returning to Fina Mendoza, Felde said part of her intent in writing the series was closing the yawning physical and psychic gaps that exists between California and Washington.
“We think we are the center of the universe because we are isolated in a lot of ways from the rest of the country,” Felde said of her fellow Californians. In Washington, “they think the same thing, but they’re the ones with the money and the power…. There is a dependency there.”
For that reason alone, she suggested, people should pay closer attention to what’s happening back East, notwithstanding the distance and the sometimes confounding, oftentimes arcane ways and means of the nation’s capital.
“It’s our government,” she said. “If you want to change the world, it’s not just City Hall. It’s not just whoever is making the HOA rules. It’s on Capitol Hill. It’s the White House. It’s the Supreme Court.”
Apart from the Fina Mendoza novels, Felde has written several other books and plays related to government and history, set in and around Washington. She also hosts several podcasts, including a book club for kids.
What does Becerra think of his artistic rendering?
Felde’s husband caught up with the gubernatorial hopeful a few months ago outside a candidates forum in Santa Monica. He presented Becerra with a copy of the first book in the series, “Welcome to Washington Fina Mendoza.” Becerra’s eyes brightened at the mention of Felde and he sent his warm regards.
Ashley Cain was dropped by the BBC after historic degrading comments about women online came to lightCredit: BBCThe SAS Who Dares Wins star has now reportedly been dropped by his agentCredit: PA
The Daily Mail reports that Ashley has now been dropped as a client by his management company Off Limits amid recent events.
“Ashley has been dropped by Off Limits, who also represent stars such as Jimmy Bullard, Jesy Nelson and Harry Redknapp,” an insider told the publication.
“They have a roster of talent who are household names, they don’t want to be associated with him after the vile posts came to light.
“Ashley is now pretty much blacklisted in the industry, and it’s doubtful he will ever be on television again.”
The reality TV star presented BBC Three doc Into The Danger ZoneCredit: BBC/True NorthA second series has now been scrappedCredit: BBC
The Sun has reached out to Off Limits and Ashley Cain for comment.
Ashley no longer appears on Off Limits website as a listed client.
The Ex on the Beach star’s Twitter posts made in 2011 and 2013 are said to have referenced extreme sex acts and appeared to make light of consent.
He reportedly used offensive, sexualised and aggressive language about women.
Despite this, series one of Ashley Cain: Into the Danger Zone aired in April 2025.
It followed his journey to the world’s most dangerous places, interviewing young men who live on the fringes of society.
Filming for a second series took place earlier this year however, it will no longer air following The Guardian‘s report accusing Ashley of writing derogatory terms in 2014 and 2015 including “sl**s”, “b***hes” and “psychos”.
After the success of his documentary, he was picked to host, Sin City: The Real Las Vegas.
Ashley was flown out to Nevada to film the show but concerns were raised about his conduct.
Appearing to be drunk during filming of the show, the production was suspended and Ashley was ultimately dropped from the project and replaced by another presenter.
Despite this, the incident went largely ignored as Ashley returned to filming with the BBC earlier this year for the second series of his Into The Danger Zone series.
A BBC spokesperson told The Sun: “The posts by Ashley Cain, albeit from many years ago, are completely unacceptable.”
“The BBC has clear requirements around vetting and social media checks, which are undertaken by the production company.
“In this instance, the process clearly failed and we are investigating why.
“We are continuing to strengthen our processes to ensure everyone working for, and on behalf of, the BBC meets our values and standards.
“We have no plans to broadcast the new series of ‘Into the Danger Zone’, and no future projects with Ashley Cain.”
SACRAMENTO — The man who brought California the top-two open primary now thinks it needs a drastic overhaul. In fact, he says the “top-two” part should be trashed.
Former state Sen. Abel Maldonado advocates returning to a “top-one” system where the winning vote-getter in each recognized political party — major or minor — qualifies for the November general election.
But he’d keep the “open” part that allows citizens to vote for any candidate on the state ballot, regardless of party.
Maldonado says he crafted the current system 16 years ago believing it would produce “pragmatic and commonsense” officeholders. But that has failed, he acknowledges.
The ex-politician, a Republican centrist who runs a Santa Maria farm operation, is one of several people from both major parties who contend the top-two system should be significantly altered or eliminated.
The movement gained momentum during the recent California primary. And I’ve got some other suggestions for reform that sprang from that election experience:
We shouldn’t allow 61 people to “run” for governor. That many people, the vast majority of them on a laughable lark, clog the ballot and create a nuisance for voters. Just so they can tell a grandkid or a guy on the next barstool, “I once was a candidate for California governor.” Each got roughly 0% of the vote.
A solution: Quadruple both the current $4,900 candidate filing fee and the alternative collection of 6,000 voter signatures. That might dissuade frivolous “candidacies.”
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Hate language should be banned from the state’s Official Voter Information Guide. One so-called gubernatorial contender got a blatantly antisemitic “candidate statement” inserted into the information guide that was mailed to all voter households.
“It was disgusting. Horrible,” said Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), chairwoman of the Assembly Elections Committee and a member of the Legislative Jewish Caucus. She’s pushing legislation to prohibit such language in the guide.
You’d think that the secretary of state’s office would have burned the crud without needing a new law, but somebody dropped the ball.
This has nothing to do with the primary, but the office of lieutenant governor should be abolished. It’s a non-job. The only real purpose is to wait for the governor to vacate the office by resignation or death. The last time that happened was 73 years ago when Gov. Earl Warren left to become a Supreme Court chief justice.
If another governor did ever depart — many fantasize about being elected president — the job could be assumed by, perhaps, the attorney general.
Two other elective state offices should also be scratched: superintendent of public instruction and insurance commissioner. Those posts should be appointed by the governor, who is the logical person to be held accountable for education and insurance policies.
And the state board of equalization. Junk that too. Hardly anyone knows what it does. Not much, after the scandal-plagued board was stripped of most of its tax duties a decade ago. They were shifted to two entities that report directly to the governor, rendering the board essentially superfluous.
But don’t expect any elective office ever to be eliminated by politicians. They desperately protect them as potential landing spots.
Back to the top-two open primary.
Maldonado jockeyed California’s oft-called jungle primary system onto the 2010 ballot as part of a late-night budget and tax deal. The senator agreed to vote for a gridlocked state budget and a hefty tax hike in exchange for legislative approval of the ballot measure.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pushed hard for the proposition and voters passed it.
Voters, regardless of party affiliation, can vote for any candidate. And the top two vote-getters, regardless of their party, advance to the general election.
The idea was that candidates would be forced to appeal to centrist voters — not just party idealogues — and more moderates would be elected.
“Can you seriously say that the top-two system has led to more moderation? No, that’s asinine,” asserts Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego, who strongly supports returning to party nominations.
A few additional moderates have been elected to the Legislature, and some districts have become more competitive. But that’s mainly because of independent, nonpartisan redistricting, according to Eric McGhee, an elections expert at the Public Policy Institute of California.
Actually, the electorate has become so polarized in recent years — particularly during the Trump era — that very few centrist voters seem to be left.
The move toward abolishing or severely reshaping the primary system is nonpartisan.
Democrat Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, favors dumping the top-two.
For one thing, she says, there was too much focus this spring on whether any Democratic gubernatorial candidate would qualify for the November ballot. Fear spread that so many Democrats were running that they’d splinter the party vote and two Republicans would finish first and second.
She wanted to hear less talk about the horse race and more debate over substantive issues.
“People were obsessing about a Democratic shutout,” Gonzalez said. “And people were waiting until the last minute to fill out their ballot because they wanted to vote for the candidate who was ahead to make sure someone made the top two. We didn’t have a policy discussion.”
A top-two problem from the beginning has been that one party, usually the GOP, always gets locked out of some legislative or congressional elections.
In November, there’ll be eight congressional races with only Democrats running and one contest with just Republican candidates. And no general election write-ins are allowed.
That’s unfair to voters. They deserve a clear ideological choice.
Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio is pushing a proposed ballot initiative to wipe out the top-two. “It hasn’t delivered what it promised,” he argues.
Agreed. We gave it a try and it didn’t work out. Time to try something new–like Maldonado’s hybrid idea.
KATIE Price has slammed “beggy” women after Lee Andrews is sent a saucy snap from a fan asking him to “forget” his wife.
The Sun revealed how the self-proclaimed ‘billionaire businessman’ – who had spent the last month locked up in Dubai’s notorious Al-wir prison –was freed earlier this month.
Sign up for the Showbiz newsletter
Thank you!
Katie Price has slammed “beggy” women after Lee Andrews is sent a saucy snap from a fan asking him to “forget” his wifeCredit: Instagram/KatiepriceThe Sun revealed how the self-proclaimed ‘billionaire businessman’ – who had spent the last month locked up in Dubai’s notorious Al-Awir prison –was freed earlier this monthCredit: wesleeeandrews/Instagram
Katie recently shared another recovery pic of her bruised lips after lip surgeryCredit: Katie Price/Facebook/BackgridKatie explained in her post that she was embarrassed for the woman who sent the messageCredit: SplashYesterday, Katie made a cryptic post about the hardship couples who are meant to be together sometimes faceCredit: mistraesthetics/InstagramKatie’s husband Lee has been advertising a ‘new money-making scheme’ as he sends ‘fans’ birthday wishes on videoCredit: Instagram
Lee had not accepted or replied to the message and Katie slammed the woman in her Instagram stories.
Posting the conversation, she said: “Why are some girls so beggy messaging my husband?
“Have some decorum, says a lot about @***.*****, I’m embarrased for you.”
WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio stood silent and stone-faced behind Donald Trump on Wednesday as the president joked of passing the buck if his deal with Iran, under increasingly withering criticism and scrutiny, ultimately falls apart.
The blame, Trump said, would likely fall on his vice president, JD Vance, who led the negotiations toward a memorandum of understanding with Iran and will sign the agreement this week in Switzerland — a ceremony that will generate indelible images for a politician openly considering a run for the White House.
The controversial diplomatic breakthrough poses a quandary for Vance, whose aides see Rubio as his most viable challenger for the Republican presidential nomination should the secretary choose to run.
“If it works out, I’m going to take the credit,” Trump said of the Iran deal, with Rubio by his side.
“If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming JD,” he joked. “You better be careful, JD!”
Silent secretary
Rubio, who also serves as the president’s national security advisor, has remained effectively mum since news of a preliminary peace deal was announced by the administration on Sunday.
His absence has drawn notice across foreign policy circles — not only because Rubio has served as chief architect of the administration’s global strategy thus far, but also because he has become one of the president’s most effective communicators, both at home and abroad.
By contrast, Vance, on a scheduled press tour promoting his new book, has emerged as the face of an agreement that appears to be fracturing a Republican Party already divided over America’s role in the world.
The administration’s internal divide over Iran extends beyond the war to broader U.S. support for its historic allies, including Israel in the Middle East, Canada and Mexico in this hemisphere, and Ukraine and Europe against a revanchist Russia.
“Rubio has always been a hawk on Iran, and Vance has always been an appeaser,” said Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, describing the vice president as positioning himself “as Trump without the flaws.”
“Rubio has a harder job because he’s more of a traditional Republican,” she said, adding that a competitive presidential run by the secretary might require him to pitch “a return to normalcy.”
No guarantee of success
Behind closed doors, Rubio advocated against the deal in its current form, citing intelligence reports that found it highly unlikely Tehran would give up its nuclear ambitions, according to two sources familiar with the matter. Rubio’s internal skepticism was first reported by Axios.
The deal kicks down the road highly technical discussions over the mechanics of unwinding Iran’s nuclear program — with no guarantee of success — while granting Tehran immediate relief, lifting a U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports that will allow Iranian imports and exports to resume.
In exchange, Iran has only agreed in principle not to pursue nuclear weapons — a vow it has made multiple times before — and to do its “best” to return commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz back to prewar levels. It commits in the deal to refrain from implementing a toll system in the strait, according to U.S. officials, for a mere 60-day period.
“This agreement is a road map for Iran to become a rising, stronger power in the [Persian] Gulf — stronger than it is even today,” said Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago.
“That is going to be an issue for the balance of power with Israel, which before the Iran war was the rising power. Now it’s lost that paradigm,” Pape said. “And this is going to be an issue with the future disposition of American forces in the region, because the [memorandum of understanding] states quite clearly that Iran is expecting those forces to withdraw.”
Positioning by the vice president
Despite mounting skepticism, Vance has embraced his role in ending a war that a powerful faction of Trump’s base aggressively opposed from the start.
“I think there are some people who just want the bombing to continue, regardless of whether it accomplishes anything for Americans,” Vance told CBS News on Wednesday.
“I do think there are people,” he added, “who sometimes confuse the ends with the means.”
Because the preliminary Iran deal leaves key details unresolved, further negotiations virtually ensure the agreement remains in flux through the election season — potentially thrusting the talks into the center of the presidential primary campaign.
“Given the distance between the parties on the core nuclear issues, as well as the Trump administration’s poor track record with coercive diplomacy, I fully expect the 60-day window for talks to be extended, as the [memorandum of understanding] text permits, taking this issue to the heart of the midterms and beyond,” said Reid Pauly, a professor of nuclear security and policy at Brown University.
“There will be a lot of incentive in the administration,” Pauly added, “to distance oneself from this fiasco.”
As a guest on Megyn Kelly’s podcast this week, Vance acknowledged the political realities of Trump’s base splintering over the Iran war, noting that a coalition of isolationists — as well as those advocating what he called a more “aggressive” foreign policy — had together swept Trump back into office.
The war may be breaking that coalition apart, he said.
“We have a constituency right now that is saying, we’re going to send boots on the ground — they want Donald Trump to send hundreds of thousands of ground troops into Iran,” Vance told the former Fox News host.
“Those are Republicans,” Kelly said.
“We need people to be pushing back from inside the tent,” Vance replied.
TV presenter Ashley Cain has been accused of using sexual and misogynistic language to describe women in a series of historical social media posts and now the BBC has spoken out on the matter
TV presenter Ashley Cain has been accused of using sexual and misogynistic language to describe women in old social media posts(Image: Ken McKay/ITV/REX/Shutterstock)
The BBC says it is taking accusations that presenter Ashley Cain used explicit sexual and misogynistic language to describe women online in historical social media posts “very seriously”.
The broadcaster is thought to be unaware of the remarks prior to an investigation led by The Guardian which claimed the TV personality frequently referred to women on X, formerly Twitter, using abusive terms and sexualised language, including “sl*gs”, “sl*ts” and “psychos”.
A BBC spokesperson said: “We are very clear we expect the highest standards of behaviour from everyone who works with or for the BBC. “When allegations are brought to our attention we take them seriously. We will consider this information carefully and do not intend to comment further at this stage.”
The former Coventry City football player, 35, is best known for fronting the BBC Three documentary series Ashley Cain: Into The Danger Zone where he explores issues affecting young men born into a life of criminality.
The newspaper reported on Wednesday that before Cain worked for the national broadcaster he was a prolific user of social media. In 2014, in response to a since-deleted tweet he perceived to be homophobic, Cain is accused of telling a woman online that she should “go and choke on a c*** you sl**”.
Cain’s X account appears to have been removed from the platform. The broadcaster is understood to have asked the independent production companies that hired Cain to review the social media checks conducted at the time.
Cain appeared last year on the BBC’s spin off cooking programme, Celebrity MasterChef. Transmission details of Into The Danger Zone series two are yet to be announced.
The star also gained respect from the public following the tragic death of his daughter Azaylia, Ashley and his then-partner, Azaylia’s mum Safiyya Vorajee, documented their extraordinary efforts to try and save her life – including raising £1.5 million to fly her to Singapore for specialist treatment.
But sadly, the child died on April 25, 2021. Ashley and his former partner went on to form The Azaylia Foundation, which supports families dealing with childhood cancer.
Five years on from the devastating day of the youngster’s funeral, dad Ashley shared an Instagram post. Alongside solemn images from the funeral, Ashley wrote: “Today I cried for the first time in a long time. As soon as I turned into the cemetery and saw her resting place, I couldn’t control the emotions that had obviously built up inside me.
“The truth is, I cannot believe it has been 5 years since we laid her to rest, and I still can’t seem to accept it. “But my time spent with her today was peaceful, it was beautiful, and it was one of those moments where time stood still… where I could reminisce about all that she was, and every moment I was privileged and blessed enough to spend with her.”
He went on: “May you continue to rest in eternal paradise my princess, and until we meet again… I will love you with the entirety of my heart, forever and always.”
The Mirror has contacted Ashley’s representatives for comment.
SACRAMENTO — If Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature truly believe that slow vote counting is a horrible problem — which it’s not — right now is the time to fix it.
They’re crafting a new state budget. And they could choose to spend the money needed to help counties hire more temporary election workers, buy more sophisticated vote-counting machines and add space for all of it.
That’s the only way to significantly speed up vote counting and mute the MAGA drivel about California being a national “laughingstock.”
How much money?
“We’ve suggested $55.5 million,” says Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, which pushes to improve the election process.
“That’s not a lot in the big scheme of the state budget.”
She’s right. It’s essentially pocket change in a proposed budget still being negotiated that tentatively totals $356 billion.
But don’t bet on much of it being allotted for swifter vote counting.
Regardless of all the potshots at California from cable news panelists about our “embarrassing” elections, faster vote tallying doesn’t seem to be a high priority for the Legislature.
Democrats are justifiably much more concerned about protecting poor people’s healthcare, in-home services for seniors and the unraveling safety net as the Trump administration and GOP Congress slash federal funding.
Federal cutbacks aside, the state for years has been spending more money than it takes in despite tax revenue exceeding expectations. Sacramento has a severe deficit spending problem that is projected to last for a while.
So, allocating more money to speed up vote counting by a few days isn’t very high on the governor’s and legislative leaders’ to-do lists.
“The reality is elections currently are underfunded,” says Assembly Elections Committee Chairwoman Gail Pellerin, a Democrat who was Santa Cruz County’s chief elections official for 27 years.
She also says, referring to demands for faster counting: “The media outlets want to call the races and be the first. And that’s what this is all about.”
I don’t disagree. By our nature, we journalists are anxious to report fresh news, including the outcomes of elections. And we become impatient when vote counts roll in seemingly at a snail’s pace.
But come on, it’s not a horrendous burden on the public to wait a few days for an accurate vote count.
It does, however, provide an excuse for President Trump and MAGA Republicans to regurgitate unfounded accusations that elections won by Democrats are “stolen” from the GOP.
“Look what’s happening in California … it’s a rigged election,” Trump bellowed in a June 7 interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” with Kristen Welker. “They’re cheating on the election.”
When Welker challenged him for evidence, Trump heatedly replied: “They’re crooked just like you’re crooked. Your press is crooked. And ‘Meet the Press’ is crooked. … You’re either crooked, or you’re stupid.”
To put this in context, the Trump diatribe came immediately after he called police officers attacked by Jan. 6 Capitol invaders “a bunch of dirty cops” and “crooked cops.” The Trump-inspired rioters were trying to prevent Congress from certifying President Biden’s “rigged” election.
It’s constantly puzzling why millions of Americans take this unhinged man’s blatherings so seriously. But they do.
And when the president lies about ballot fraud, it erodes public confidence in the integrity of our election system and undermines democracy. Americans become even more cynical and polarized.
So, the governor, Legislature and counties would do everyone a favor by investing in a faster vote count.
“It’s a problem,” Alexander asserts. “The slow vote count has become the norm in California, but it’s not normal for a democracy. It opens the door for false fraud claims.”
Much of the slow count results from tallying mail ballots, which amount to at least 80% of votes cast. They take longer to process, largely because each voter’s signature on the ballot’s envelope needs to be checked against one on file.
So, California could speed up counting by mailing out fewer ballots. Now, every registered voter gets one. We could go back to requiring voters to request an “absentee” ballot.
But forget that. We’re right to make it easy for people to participate in democracy — as long as safeguards are maintained to prevent fraud.
Some counties have taken advantage of a new law that allows a voter to drop off a filled-in mail ballot inside a voting center. There, it’s handled like an old-fashioned ballot that’s filled out at a booth. This significantly reduces processing time. But many counties say they need more state money to implement the program. I have no idea why.
Counting also is slow, of course, because lots of voters wait until election day — or near it — to cast their mail ballot. That clogs the system.
If the ballot is postmarked by election day, it’s allowed seven days to reach vote processors. Trump and fraud conspirators want to trash all ballots arriving after election day. That would speed up counting. But it’s un-American.
California election officials also try to pressure voters into mailing their ballots early. Rubbish.
Election day should mean something. It’s a day citizens are allowed to vote — whether they hand their ballot to a clerk at a voting center or drop it in the mail. They’ve got a right to take their sweet time in concluding what the wisest voting decisions are.
After all, the government allows us to drop our tax return in the mail on April 15 each year — and is very happy to receive our check a few days later. They process that check plenty fast.
“There’s nothing wrong with a slow count,” says Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor who specializes in election law. “But it‘s a major problem because, unfortunately, it’s a manufactured crisis that can undermine public confidence. And it has gotten worse.”
So, Sacramento needs to undermine the demagogic manufacturers by stepping up vote counting while keeping elections virtually fraud-free.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Hilton on Tuesday addressed the president’s unfounded but vociferous claims that Democrats have massively cheated in our recent election.
“We’ve got teams standing by, we’ve got lawyers standing by, very focused on that,” Hilton told reporters, including my colleague Seema Mehta, outside the L.A. elections headquarters. “We don’t want to let anyone down, we don’t want to let anything slip away, and we’ve seen nothing.”
We’ve. Seen. Nothing.
How refreshing to have a MAGA insider repudiate the lies.
“But we need a wide-scale audit of the California voter roll,” Essayli told Beck.
Voter rolls are a huge refrain in conspiracy theories and the subject of numerous (mostly unsucessful) lawsuits by Trump‘s Department of Justice. Trump is demanding that the federal government “audit” the voter rolls to ensure ballots go only to legal voters, which is one of those scary and ill-conceived ideas that sounds reasonable on the surface.
Trump’s lawyers, some of whom made careers out of civil lawsuits around voter conspiracy allegations before being appointed to office, claim untold thousands of ballots are sent out erroneously, then somehow, via Democrats, land in the hands of undocumented immigrants and others who use them to vote illegally.
It is nonsense, but also now government-backed nonsense.
“It certainly is a new level of danger that the people who spent unlimited amounts of time and money trying to prove that the 2020 election was stolen are now leading and staffing the Department of Justice,” Eileen O’Connor told me. She’s a senior counsel at the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program, a nonpartisan effort to protect democracy.
“There have just been people who have spent every waking moment of their lives, practically for decades now, searching for all of this voter fraud that they claim is happening and not finding it,” O’Connor said. “And they’re still failing to find it.”
So what’s the deal with voter rolls? Are they really the dark heart of a Democratic scam to rig elections? Or is the scam that Trump and MAGA are attempting to use the boring and bureaucratic nature of voting rolls to do the very thing they claim to be fighting — undermine of free and fair elections?
What the heck is a voter roll?
Voter rolls are the lists of eligible voters kept by each state.
States run elections, because, well, the Constitution. But that structure is also a good idea because states keep closer track of who is a legal resident and where they are than the federal government.
Those like O’Connor who care about democracy and fair elections point out federal meddling with an “audit” of these lists is vastly overstepping federal power — and likely will knock of numerous voters who have a right to cast a ballot.
Part of that is because voter rolls are “loose,” according to Chris Fowler, a professor of geography and demographics at Penn State who specializes in voting rights. Most states have laws that strive to be inclusive and are slow to remove people from the lists, precisely because we want as many people to vote as we can get.
Some people in California are added when they get a driver’s license. Some people move and ask the postal service to update their voter registration. Some people register once, move dozens of times and never think to tell their secretary of state.
Some people die. Some people get married and change their name. Some people don’t vote for 10 years, then do. You get the idea. Life happens, and updating voter registration is rarely our first thought.
And yes, there are cases of folks illegally getting onto voter rolls, such as one Essayli recently pointed to in which a signature gatherer was paying folks on Skid Row to register to vote. The key there being register, not actually vote.
One-off cases like this should be and are prosecuted, but the inclusive nature of the rolls is by design, not a flaw.
“They’re imperfect,” Fowler said.
Why not audit?
Fowler added, though, if someone wants to make a big stink about fraud without any actual evidence, that inaccuracy is the perfect sleight of hand. To the average person, it sounds bad that we can’t keep a clean list of eligible voters.
But here’s what the conspiracy folks leave out: Being on the voter roll doesn’t automatically mean a vote will be counted or even that a ballot will be sent. It’s just the starting point of everyone who might be invited to the party.
There are numerous safeguards, such as signature verification, that cast ballots go through before the vote is considered legitimate. When there is doubt, the vote is “cured,” which is an unnecessarily convoluted way of saying local election officials may go as far as tracking down the actual voter and making sure they are legit. Yes, if there is a question, actual people contact an actual voter. If they can’t get in contact, the vote is usually set aside.
The MAGA demand to audit voter rolls ignores all this reality and is instead based on the false idea that voter rolls translate directly into counted votes.
The game MAGA is running with voter roll audits is that it was never about election integrity. It’s about suppressing the vote of Black people, brown people, young people and others who tend to vote Democratic and also tend to have more unsettled lives that would lead them to have inaccurate information, such as conflicting addresses, on the voter rolls.
Federal audits would, instead of protecting elections, allow a conspiracy theory to be weaponized into a way to keep legal voters from casting their ballot. Call it the new Jim Crow — a disingenuous way to suppress certain votes all gussied up as safety.
But the effort creates a win-win for Trump. If his Department of Justice is successful in getting state voter rolls — which it has been in more than a dozen states that have voluntarily turned them over — they can demand as many names as they want be removed.
The federal government has not said what criteria it will use to “clean” these rolls, who will be in charge, how the information will be used or kept, or how people will even know they’ve been knocked off until they try to vote. There is even concern the information gathered from audits will be used for other purposes, such as immigration enforcement or surveillance activities.
And for the many states such as California who are fighting the demand in courts — the DOJ lost its California case and has appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — MAGA is simply screaming that the mere fact of protecting these lists from federal interference is proof that we’re covering up this vast conspiracy.
“It is part of laying the groundwork to just be able to say either we have all these voter rolls and we’ve analyzed them and they’re full of errors, or to be able to say, ‘Oh, you didn’t hand over the voter rolls. What are you hiding?’ O’Connor said.
None of that is actually good for elections, or democracy. That’s the real scam with voter roll audits.
They are a Trumped-up attempt to make us doubt a system that is working just as designed, imperfectly and inclusively, protecting democracy while encouraging legal voters to participate.
![The Neonatal Department at Omdurman Maternity Hospital is the largest of its kind in Sudan [Mohammed Mirghani/Al Jazeera]](https://i0.wp.com/occasionaldigest.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Pic-855443-1783004651-1783254562.webp?w=640&ssl=1)
