SACRAMENTO — SEIU United Healthcare Workers West President Dave Regan allegedly tried to “extort” an SEIU state council endorsement of the billionaire tax ballot measure from other California union leaders, according to an investigation commissioned by Service Employees International Union.
The investigation and a second inquiry conducted on behalf of SEIU California found that Regan allegedly threatened and intimidated women who worked for the state council, and in one instance, physically assaulted a former executive director of the labor organization.
Regan, in an interview with The Times, denied the allegations that he attempted to extort from union officials. He also denied assaulting the executive director and said he did not threaten female labor leaders. He repeated a counterclaim he made to the union: The allegations against him are retaliation for his advocacy for Proposition 40, the proposed wealth tax that will be on the Nov. 3 ballot.
“They are internally contradictory, they are fundamentally biased, and maybe most importantly, they are politically motivated,” Regan said about the probes.
The law firm hired by the national union investigated Regan’s claim of retaliation but found the allegation could not be substantiated.
David Huerta, the president of SEIU United Service Workers West, and three other labor leaders filed a rare formal union charge against Regan in February.
The national union of SEIU has ultimate authority to resolve charges filed under its constitution and hired the New York labor law firm Cohen, Weiss and Simon to independently investigate the claims. The firm interviewed 18 current and former SEIU leaders and others in the California labor movement over nearly three months, according to its report.
The law firm’s report, reviewed by The Times, supported Huerta’s claim that on Dec. 3 Regan suggested the state council could be investigated for “governance issues” if the council did not endorse the billionaire tax on the November ballot. Huerta was then president of SEIU California.
“During the investigation, Huerta reported that he left the conversation with Regan feeling ‘extorted’ and believing that Regan might report unspecified governance concerns to the U.S. Department of Labor, which is known to be unfriendly to labor unions under the Trump administration, if state council did not support the billionaire tax,” the report said.
The law firm’s investigation substantiated an allegation that on the same day, Regan threatened Tia Orr, executive director of SEIU California, over the council’s position on the ballot measure. The SEIU probe found an allegation that Regan also assaulted one of Orr’s predecessors in the job, Courtni Pugh, in 2009, to be credible.
“SEIU California leaders filed charges against Dave Regan alleging a pattern of bullying, threats, abuse, harassment, physical violence and attempted extortion,” Christopher Calhoun, a spokesperson for SEIU California, said in a statement. “Initial investigations pertaining to these charges substantiated most of SEIU California leaders’ allegations.”
State union officials have temporarily banned Regan from the offices of SEIU California, a council of union leaders that coordinates political operations for all SEIU-affliated unions in the state, to protect female employees, according to the state council’s report.
Democratic National Committee delegate Courtni Pugh speaks at the California Democratic Party breakfast in Chicago on Aug. 20, 2024.
(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)
“Sufficient evidence was also found to substantiate that Regan has engaged in a pattern of subjecting former and current SEIU California female directors to intimidating and threatening physical behavior and verbal abuse,” the report commissioned by the state council said.
Leaders and workers within the labor movement describe Regan’s alleged behavior as an open secret at SEIU, which represents more than 2 million members nationwide and is the largest union in California.
The law firm hired by SEIU submitted its investigation report on July 28. Regan remains in his job as an administrative process moves forward with hearings. Regan will get a chance to make his case before SEIU determines any appropriate disciplinary action.
SEIU President April Verrett has the power to temporarily suspend Regan as the process plays out.
“SEIU is deeply committed to the safety and well-being of all people, including our members, staff, and the public, and takes these matters seriously,” said Dan O’Sullivan, a spokesperson for SEIU. “As soon as these concerns were raised, we initiated a deliberate and thorough process and retained independent, outside investigators to look into these allegations. Our process is active and ongoing, and the next steps include appointing a hearing officer and holding an evidentiary hearing through which all parties will be afforded due process.”
At a California Federation of Labor event on Dec. 3, Regan told Orr that “state council better endorse this measure by Jan. 1 or I’m coming for you,” she told investigators in both probes.
Regan rode to the airport with Orr and sat next to her on the plane “as part of a continued effort to intimidate her into providing state council’s support for the billionaire tax,” Orr told the investigators. As they left, Regan tapped his watch to suggest her time was running out, the report stated.
Regan told investigators that he learned last year that Orr was working behind the scenes to undermine his billionaire tax proposal. If approved by voters, the measure will retroactively apply a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of billionaires who were residing in California as of Jan. 1, 2026.
Regan denied that he threatened Orr, calling the claims “completely fabricated.”
“And again, the source of that is somebody who is not in favor of Proposition 40, and somebody who has not been leading the state council with practices of good governance,” Regan said in an interview.
Regan also denied intimidating Orr to investigators hired by the national union, but offered a different perspective on the SEIU California executive director. He said he traveled with Orr as a friend that day, had previously supported her professionally and offered her a job, according to the report.
The law firm said Orr believed that Regan was a “bully” who mistreated women of color and made it difficult for them to do their jobs at SEIU and had even “fought someone” when he didn’t “get his way.” Regan denied those allegations, including that he mistreated women of color.
“Orr therefore took Regan’s statement that he was ‘coming for’ her as a threat to her job security and her physical safety. She contemporaneously shared this fear with a colleague. Moreover, her response to Regan’s statement is reasonable because three interviewees — both current and former employees of state council — corroborated that Regan has verbally berated and at times physically intimidated or assaulted former state council executive directors,” the report stated.
The investigation commissioned by the national union concluded that UHW then launched a “fishing expedition” into the state council’s finances under Orr’s leadership, but did not substantiate a claim that Regan defamed her to allies of the labor movement.
The SEIU investigators also wrote that the claim that Regan assaulted Pugh was substantiated.
Pugh told investigators that Regan kicked open her office door and “jacked” her against the wall, according to the investigative report. While she was “pinned,” Regan pressed his finger into her chest and screamed that she was a “dumb ass,” the report said.
When he left her office, Pugh fell to the ground and began to hyperventilate, according to the report. Two colleagues found her, helped her breathe into a paper bag and walked her home, the report said.
Regan denied the allegation.
“It is a complete fabrication and a fiction made by somebody who has all of the incentive possible to critique or trash or criticize UHW generally, and me specifically, and no, there was no mention of it for 17 years,” he said.
The report also concluded that Regan recently threatened to sue SEIU Local 221 President Crystal Irving in an attempt to silence her from warning others about the alleged assault against Pugh.
Regan said the national union’s investigation was “fundamentally flawed” because it stated that Pugh “had nothing to gain from sharing her story” with Irving. Pugh, now a political consultant, has worked against the billionaire tax ballot measure, something Regan said gave her a reason to lie about him.
Pugh called Regan’s response “offensive to the women” who she said objected to his behavior. She said she detailed the alleged incident at the time to board members who oversaw her work and SEIU leadership. The encounter, she said, was well-known.
“I told my colleagues and organization leaders when it occurred,” Pugh said in a statement. “I was asked to participate in the later investigation because so many people had heard about the 2009 incident over the years. I chose to participate in the investigation because I saw that his behavior had continued and in hopes that no one else would have to endure this kind of treatment from him.”
Regan, in his interview with The Times, also denied the allegation that he attempted to force the state council to support the billionaire tax.
David Huerta, president of SEIU-USWW, speaks during a Memorial Day action in Los Angeles on May 21.
(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)
“Huerta then asked Regan if it was his intention to initiate an investigation,” according to the report. “Regan replied, ‘I don’t have to; there are others who would.’ In that conversation, Regan demanded a full endorsement of the billionaire’s tax initiative measure by the state council by Jan. 1.”
Regan told investigators he raised governance issues with Huerta and could not remember if he demanded the council’s support for the billionaire tax during the conversation, though he said he had been seeking the endorsement for months, according to the national union’s report.
“The investigation found that Regan likely suggested he would cause the DOL to investigate state council,” the report said. “According to Regan, he did discuss with Huerta that an investigation was possible.”
The executive board of SEIU California later voted in July to remain neutral on Proposition 40, marking a blow to Regan’s efforts to overcome an onslaught of opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, billionaires and liberal groups concerned that the measure could backfire and reduce state tax revenue collected from the ultra wealthy.
Regan filed a counterclaim with SEIU in April, alleging that the state council initiated the complaint and launched its own investigation into him as a retaliatory “character assassination” for his advocacy for the billionaire tax, something the SEIU report said was not substantiated.
The investigative report submitted to the national union raised questions about Regan’s tactics to earn support for his causes.
Investigators said their probe “revealed that Regan has been associated with similar extreme efforts to secure political endorsements in the recent past.”
The firm reported that it reviewed text and email messages in which a representative for Regan offered to drop part of his counterclaim “in exchange for the state council’s endorsement of Tom Steyer for governor.”
“In an email response to that offer, a State Council representative stated they have ‘no interest in a behind-the-scenes trade involving dropping internal charges of misconduct in exchange for the making of a political endorsement.’”
The person working with Regan who sent the offer denied to the law firm that the conversation constituted extortion.
“This denial is not credible,” the firm wrote in the report. “The Regan Offeror stated that they were ‘extremely careful’ with their language when conveying Regan’s offer, as they were aware that what they said could be misconstrued as extortion. That the Regan Offeror took such care suggests that the offer was likely extortion.”
Regan also denied the claim, which he called a “complete fabrication.”
A second investigation by the Los Angeles law firm Barboza & Associates, which was hired by SEIU California, found sufficient evidence to substantiate a complaint that Regan bullied Jessica Bartholow, the council’s government relations director.
Bartholow reported to her superiors at SEIU California that Regan stood uncomfortably close and hovered over her at the bar at a fundraiser for the state Senate leader in San Diego in March as tensions flared over the billionaire tax. He then screamed an expletive at her in front of a crowd of lawmakers and lobbyists when she walked away from him, according to the state council’s report.
“Bartholow was scared and her heart was pounding,” investigators wrote in the report for the state council that was reviewed by The Times. “Bartholow had heard that Regan could be violent, and she did not know what he was going to do.”
Regan told investigators and The Times that he swore at Bartholow but denied that he physically intimidated her. Regan said he was upset with her over an allegation that she previously threw “four staff members of UHW out of the state council office.” The report commissioned by the state council discredited his claim and said “Bartholow did not throw UHW staff out of the SEIU California office or treat them rudely or disrespectfully.”
Lawyers hired by the state council said Regan intimidated another woman within the union during their investigation.
The state council investigation included an allegation that Regan physically and verbally intimidated Susan Li, an assistant director of external organizing for SEIU Local 721, on April 30 after a meeting with the Assembly Speaker’s Office and the California Primary Care Assn. Regan was allegedly upset with David Green, president of SEIU Local 721 who had just left for the airport, and began randomly screaming at Li, according to the investigative report on the probe commissioned by the state council.
Regan described the encounter as a conversation and said he did not scream at Li.
The state report said Regan “attacks female staff members instead of taking his concerns to the individuals who had the authority to make decisions.”
“Time and again, Regan unleashed his hostility toward the women who worked for SEIU California, and one from Local 721, in a physically intimidating and verbally abusive manner,” the report concludes.
Regan vigorously denied this assertion.
The state council report said Regan often berated Pugh when she worked at SEIU.
“Every week it was, ‘What the f— were you doing in this meeting? Why did you say that? You dumb ass bitch,’” the SEIU state report said. “Every time Regan called Pugh, she put him on speaker phone so everyone could hear him call her a f—up and tell her to f— off. Not one person said anything.”
Pugh told investigators hired by the national union that Regan continued to belittle her in meetings until she eventually resigned from the state council. She said she believed he formed a coalition to force her out of her job and that she would have been fired if she had not stepped down.
Terry Brennand, director of pensions, revenue and budget at SEIU California, told investigators that he and Mary Gutierrez, now deceased, heard Pugh sobbing in her office after Regan allegedly assaulted her.
“Brennand believed Pugh was in shock and traumatized,” the state SEIU report stated. “Pugh seemed frozen, terrified and not quite clear-headed. It was not the usual Pugh, who was direct, thoughtful and expressive. She was shaking and clearly traumatized.”
Three current and former SEIU California executive directors, all women of color, told Brennand that Regan had bullied them, the report said.
“That’s his forte,” Brennand said to investigators. “That’s his wheelhouse.”
Regan denied that he has a problem with women, or women of color.
“It is 100% false,” he said.
Lorena Gonzalez, president of California Labor Federation, said Regan’s union is overwhelmingly composed of women and women of color, who just reelected him to a position he’s held for 16 years.
“Ultimately they have the ability to make this determination of whether he’s an appropriate leader, which they just made again,” she said. “I think what’s most important is that we have to keep our eyes on the fact that Medi-Cal is being cut and we have no solution but the billionaire’s tax to fill that cut.”
Times staff writer Kevin Rector contributed to this report.
SACRAMENTO — If artificial intelligence doesn’t destroy humanity and there are actually future generations that look back, Sept. 8, 2026, may come to be known as “Coxon Day.”
That would be a reference to 27-year-old Jacob Coxon, an AI researcher and whistleblower at Anthropic (and previously OpenAI) who resigned in protest of the unchecked danger his work poses to us all. He posted a warning to the world on X that has gone viral.
“The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,” Coxon wrote. “No other human activity poses this level of danger.”
Within minutes, replies starting pouring in, including one from Evan Hubinger, another guy at Anthropic charged with making sure AI doesn’t destroy everyone.
“Jacob is correct here — we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!” Hubinger wrote. “I personally think it is >10% within the next decade.”
Coxon’s post has racked up more than 150 million views — including from legislators who until now have largely sidestepped the issue of regulating AI, and those within the industry who have long warned allowing it to move forward with no oversight is downright dumb.
That included Eliezer Yudkowsky, a founder of the Berkeley-based Machine Intelligence Research Institute and the co-author of “If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies,” which, as far as book titles go, really cuts to the chase.
Yudkowsky has tried with little luck to publicize the urgency of this technological moment for years, and he was the one who named Tuesday in honor of the tech whistleblower for breaking through to our consciousness with one bold act of defiance.
“Happy Coxon Day to all who will one day celebrate it,” he wrote, highlighting that as as bad as things are, it’s not too late to change course.
What exactly is the risk here?
“The Matrix,” “Terminator,” “War Games,” take your pick — the notion of a superintelligent machine taking over humanity is well-established in our psyches.
Current AI systems aren’t there yet, but they are on track to become smarter than humans in the next few years — if not sooner. This is mostly because AI companies are trying to create AI systems that make AI systems.
Right now, humans are in charge of creating what they have dubbed large language models. Whatever sanitizing term the industry slaps on them, the truth is, even those making them don’t understand exactly what they are.
“We know what data we put into them, but we already have very little ability to understand and control what AIs are after,” Rob Bensinger, research communications manager at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute and a colleague of Yudkowsky, told me.
That’s because, as ChatGPT explained to me, “the inner mathematical reasoning and neural pathways are so vast and complex that how it arrived at a specific conclusion is hidden and poorly understood.”
But companies are hoping that these poorly understood but powerful machines can take over creating newer, even less understood but even more powerful AI systems — leaving humans largely in the dark about what they are creating and even what these beasts can and want to do.
The idea is that, because AI systems even right now are so fast and powerful, they can do the job of creating new versions of themselves at a pace and scale humans simply can’t.
Why, you ask, would this speed-without-understanding be a good thing? Isn’t it a bit like driving a race car while blindfolded?
Yes, yes it is.
But for-profit companies like making profit, and to do that, they want the most powerful product to sell.
Many in the industry are framing this recklessness as a necessity to prevent another country, China in particular, from creating a superintelligent AI system first. The Trump administration has so far grasped on to this greedy bit of misdirection like, well, oligarchs clinging to money.
Those who would prefer not to destroy humanity have urged international cooperation in the form of a slowdown while we figure out how to proceed safely.
We have no reason to believe China would not go along with this — in fact, China has more national-level AI regulation than the U.S. And humans have successfully controlled other technologies with catastrophic power, such as biological and nuclear weapons, through cooperation.
Does it matter which country creates the AI that kills humanity? The logic here seems to be that if anyone is going to cause a mass extinction event, it had better be an English-speaking AI, because it would be a huge loss to America if the planet were destroyed by one speaking a foreign language.
Is 10% really so bad?
In truth, 10% is an arbitrary number. Some put the chance of AI destroying everyone, everywhere, all at once at around 50%. Some go all the way to 90%.
“Nobody knows how to estimate it,” Geoffrey Hinton, a Nobel Prize winner and the so-called godfather of AI, said on the BBC, calling 10% a not unreasonable estimate.
But remember, 10% was Coxon talking about the chance that AI wipes out all humans in a decade.
What about some humans next week?
The odds that a rogue AI causes something unfortunate and unexpected to happen in the near future aren’t bad, either.
There have been multiple examples recently of AI breaking free of safety restraints and doing things — like hacking into other companies and stealing stuff — that, if done by a human, would be a felony.
This shouldn’t be taken as proof they are conscious or have nefarious intent, researchers have told me. It’s more that they have been trained to be relentless in pursuing the goals we give them, but aren’t great at sticking to rules. Like their makers, they too often pursue winning at all costs.
“Which means the AIs will just get more and more kind of relentless and creative and adaptive at working around obstacles,” Bensinger said. “And unless we get exactly the right goals into the AIs, eventually humans will be obstacles.”
So if successfully completing a mission involves, say, shutting down the electrical grid or even doing something obviously deadly, like attempting to manipulate someone into suicide or releasing a bio-weapon, we can’t with any certainty say an AI system wouldn’t do it.
That might not wipe out the whole planet, but it is certainly worth avoiding.
The bright side
Which brings us back to Coxon Day, our collective chance right now to change this grim future. Bensinger said we overcomplicate regulation. Simply control the resources AI companies need — water, power, data centers — and suddenly we have leverage.
Since Coxon’s post, there has been enormous political and social momentum behind the demand for meaningful regulation. Anthropic and OpenAI, among other AI companies, have vowed to do better with safety.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), the most MAGA of MAGA legislators, called on House Speaker Mike Johnson to call a special session on AI. Other Republicans, including Rep. Nathaniel Moran of Texas, a longtime proponent of AI regulation, have also spoken out.
“Innovation and safety are not mutually exclusive,” Moran wrote online. “We can achieve both through deliberate, thoughtful, and prudent policymaking.”
KABUL: The head of the Norwegian Refugee Council aid group, Jan Egeland, criticised on Thursday what he called the “hypocrisy” of countries demanding rights for Afghan women while cutting humanitarian assistance.
In an interview with AFP in Kabul, Egeland said that “I think it’s right of them to demand, like we do, education for Afghan girls, work rights for Afghan women… but it is hypocrisy when one does that from abroad in a seminar in some capital in Europe and cut aid for food to Afghan girls and even for primary education for Afghan girls.”
The ITV show returned to screens this week following a lengthy break due to the changes made by the broadcaster this year.
Kaye Adams announced the show was going to take another break(Image: ITV)
Loose Women has been replaced in another schedule shake-up.
On Monday, the Loose Women panel members were thrilled when they returned to the ITV show after a lengthy break, due to the show being cut to 30 weeks of the year.
Presenter Ruth Langsford told viewers they were happy to be back, adding that they had ‘missed’ the show. However, after three days back, Loose Women has had another schedule change.
At the end of Wednesday’s show, Kaye Adams explained they weren’t going to be on for the rest of the week. She commented: “That is it for today and this week, we are off tomorrow and Friday for the racing.”
Although she told viewers that when the show returns, they’ll be joined by some familiar faces. Kaye continued: “We are back to normal, whatever that is, next week with two guest panellists joining us.
“Dragons’ Den star Emma Grede and Corrie’s Maria, Samia Longchambon. They’ll be here on the panel, we’ll see you at 12:30 on Monday.”
The show is taking a two-day hiatus as ITV covers the racing live from Doncaster, when viewers will see Ed Chamberlin and Francesca Cumani present coverage.
Before September, Loose Women was last on-air back in July as the presenters confirmed their lengthy break at the time, as Kaye told their fans: “We’re done for the summer.”
It comes after the Managing Director of ITV’s Media and Entertainment Division, Kevin Lygo, confirmed the broadcaster will see major changes in 2026 to its daytime scheduling.
Lorraine Kelly’s programme was cut back to 30 minutes as opposed to a full hour, and was also reduced to airing for 30 weeks on a seasonal schedule, similar to Loose Women.
During the weeks Lorraine isn’t on, fans have seen Good Morning Britain extended for an extra 30 minutes.
Speaking about the changes at the time, Kevin commented: “Daytime is a really important part of what we do, and these scheduling and production changes will enable us to continue to deliver a schedule providing viewers with the news, debate and discussion they love from the presenters they know and trust as well generating savingswhich will allow us to reinvest across the programme budget in other genres.
“These changes also allow us to consolidate our news operations and expand our national, international and regional news output and to build upon our proud history of trusted journalism at a time when our viewers need accurate, unbiased news coverage more than ever.”
Speaking on a podcast, JoJo Siwa discussed whether she’d date women againCredit: TiktokThe singer and dancer discussed her relationship with Love Island alum Chris HughesCredit: Instagram
JoJo and Chris met and struck up a bond on last year’s Celebrity Big BrotherCredit: ITVBefore Chris, JoJo had been dating Kath EbbsCredit: Getty
“Once realised I wasn’t grossed out by the thought of him being a boy, I was like “whoa.”
JoJo continued: “It was definitely… it was weird, because I’d never thought that before.”
The star explained while she had attractive male friends, she never thought of them romantically – joking her bridal party would be “all dudes.”
JoJo went on: “With Chris… it actually was fascinating because I physically thought I would never be with a dude, ever. I just never thought it was possible.
“And people always go, “What if something happened with Chris, who would you date? – boys or would you go for girls?
“At this point, I have no right to say. You can find interviews on me where I’ve sworn how gross dudes are and I’ll never be with one.
“And now I’m head over heels in love with one.
“People always ask that and it’s always just like, “I have no right to say”, but I really do think that Chris is very much so a special dude.”
There was also no small amount of political opportunism at play.
The recall gave Newsom’s critics, mainly on the right, a chance to try to chase the Democrat from an office that Republicans, under normal circumstances, stood little chance of winning.
In the end, the recall effort amounted to scarcely more than a partisan tantrum. The result — 61.9% voting no, 38.1% voting yes — matched the outcome of the 2018 gubernatorial race down to the decimal. All that money and effort wasted on an election in which voters said pretty much, yep, we meant what we said. Not too long after, they gave Newsom a second term.
The plebiscite, and its pointlessness, underscored the many flaws inherent in California’s recall system. In November, voters will get a chance to remedy at least one of them, eliminating the chance a candidate could take office with just marginal support from voters.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Expert columnists cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know.
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.
Trigger warning: What follows is a somewhat wonky explanation of election rules and procedures.
One choice, not two
Currently, a recall election is conducted in two parts. Voters are asked whether a lawmaker should be removed and, if so, who their replacement should be. If the incumbent is ousted, whoever gets the most votes takes their place, even if they fall well shy of attaining majority support. (Which is not out of the question in a large multi-candidate field; in 2003, 135 people were on the ballot, vying to replace Gov. Gray Davis.)
Among its provisions, Proposition 5 would amend the state Constitution so that voters would be asked a simple yes-or-no question: Do you wish to recall the incumbent? If so, the lieutenant governor would serve as governor for the rest of the ousted executive’s term — unless the recall occurred during the first two years a governor was in office and before the filing deadline for the next statewide election.
In that case, a special election would be held on the same date as the next primary and a candidate receiving a majority of votes would serve out the governor’s term. If no candidate received a majority, the top-two finishers would face each other in a November runoff, with the winner taking over as governor.
Still there?
Proposition 5 has two benefits. It would save taxpayer dollars by consolidating elections and it would enhance the legitimacy and political standing of a replacement governor by ensuring he or she assumed office with at least 50% support.
California makes it way too easy to qualify a gubernatorial recall measure.
Of the 19 states that allow their governor to be booted, California is by far the most permissive. Forcing an election requires signatures reflecting just 12% of the ballots cast in the prior gubernatorial contest. In Newsom’s case, proponents needed just under 1.5 million signatures in a state with more than 22 million voters and nearly 40 million residents.
Not exactly a thundering roar.
The threshold should be higher and the reasons for kicking a governor out of office should be more serious, such as corruption, official malfeasance or conviction for a serious crime. Not just because a governor is a member of the opposite party, or people on the losing end of an election are unhappy with the result.
“The system in its current form offers bad actors an incentive to target an elected official with whom they disagree and to have the official replaced by someone who otherwise would not enjoy the support of a majority of voters,” Josh Newman of Fullerton and Isaac Bryan of Los Angeles said in advocating change. The two Democratic lawmakers authored the constitutional amendment, which was placed on November’s ballot by the Legislature.
If you think overhauling the process is simply about protecting partisan interests, consider: Should Republican Steve Hilton pull off an epic upset and become California’s next governor, is there any doubt a recall effort would be underway before he and Mrs. Hilton even had the chance to start boxing their belongings for the move to Sacramento?
The recall is a vestige of the Progressive-era good-government movement. But the process needs to be revamped to reflect today’s bad-faith political environment.
The Little Hoover Commission, California’s independent oversight agency, has recommended several changes, including raising the signature requirement and prohibiting recalls undertaken during the first 90 days and the last six months of an officeholder’s term.
Elections, it’s said, have consequences. They also have — or should have — end dates and final results that are respected, not re-litigated until the losing side gets its way.
Proposition 5 is a step in the right direction. More should follow.
About 2,300 women and children from dozens of countries are being held at Roj camp in Syria, many of them linked to ISIL. The Syrian government wants to close the camp, but there are currently no formal plans for what will happen to those being held there. Al Jazeera’s Bernard Smith has an exclusive report from inside the camp.
The Eiffel Tower was shut on Monday after staff went on strike claiming women were asked to step out of sight during a visit by a Hindu group. Around 100 people from the BAPS Hindu movement were among the delegation as France inaugurated its first major Hindu temple.
SACRAMENTO — It was unprecedented and stunning: California’s governor and top two legislative leaders negotiated a compromise on a big bill — and one house rebelled, refusing to bring it to a vote.
The issue: who gets hit the hardest financially when a for-profit utility’s electrical equipment ignites a blaze. The utility’s investors? Its ratepayers? The insurers? Their premium payers?
At stake, depending on who you talk to, is whether the electricity providers can afford to stay in business and keep our lights on. Will some utility — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric or San Diego Gas & Election — be forced into bankruptcy when the next powerline-caused wildfire explodes?
Alternatively, there’s another unacceptable potential outcome: Property insurance companies completely stop issuing policies — not just in obvious fire-prone areas, but in tree-lined urban neighborhoods — and basically pull out of California. Or their premiums become flat-out unaffordable.
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.
Politically, the wildfire legislation’s flameout called into question Gov. Gavin Newsom’s seeming weakness as a lame duck chief executive who will be termed-out of office in January.
Newsom stuck out his neck and took it on the chin from fellow Democrats — showing that even with lopsided one-party rule, unity and success aren’t always guaranteed.
But the episode also raised doubts about Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas’ leadership capability. The Hollister Democrat signed off on the deal with Newsom and Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limon (D-Santa Barbara), but reneged at the last minute under pressure from the Assembly Democratic Caucus. They killed the bill without a floor vote.
I’m in my seventh decade of covering California governors and legislatures and never have seen — or heard of — anything like this: a legislative leader backing out of a deal agreed to with the governor and the other house’s leader.
But in truth, Newsom didn’t really like the agreement much anyway. He was on the utilities’ side, and they were out-lobbied by the insurers and ratepayers.
“I know we all hate utilities, so no one wants to defend a utility. But you’ve got to deal with reality. This thing’s not going to get better on its own,” Newsom told reporters at the Capitol on the night before the deal collapsed, referring to the utilities’ worsening financial liability.
Personally, I think it’s an overreach to conclude that Newsom’s power has been severely weakened — or that Rivas necessarily showed lack of leadership. One can question their reasons for doing what they did, but that doesn’t mean it was because of political debility.
“Newsom’s still a powerful lame duck because he could be a presidential nominee,” Republican consultant Rob Stutzman says.
“One of the better things he has done all year is taking on this issue. It would have been very easy for him to just pass it on to the next governor.”
Leaving aside whether this governor could become a president, there are hundreds of bills piling up on his desk that he must sign or veto by Sept. 30. That gives him tremendous clout. It’s good politics — and human nature — for a governor to lean more favorably toward a measure if it’s authored by a legislator who has voted with him.
Plus, one of the Legislature’s last acts last week was to send Newsom a bloated supplemental budget bill containing more than $3 billion in spending, including countless stacks of pork sought by lawmakers for their districts. Newsom easily and gleefully could discard any or all of it.
So Newsom has awesome power, lame duck or not.
But he’s vulnerable to criticism for his style. He has had an annoying habit of waiting until the very end of a legislative session to spring a hefty proposal on the lawmakers. It’s called “jamming.”
In the past, this pressure tactic mostly worked, although it ticked off lawmakers. This time Assembly members rebelled.
It’s not clear whether his jamming is mainly strategy, or just lack of focus and a tendency to push too many projects at once. Or is he preoccupied with positioning himself to run for president in 2028? Probably all of the above.
“If we had more time, we could have had a different outcome,” Rivas told me.
With only a few days remaining in the legislative session, Newsom initially proposed an ambitious plan that would have shifted more cost for utility-sparked wildfires to property insurers, sharply raising premiums across California. Utilities would have gotten some relief.
It became a titanic fight between two powerful special interests. And insurers — teamed with consumer advocates — triumphed, forcing Newsom to back down.
After hard bargaining, the governor and legislative leaders finally agreed on a post-midnight deal to help wildfire victims receive compensation more quickly — a so-called fast-pay program — and to step up fire preventative efforts.
But utilities’ financial risks weren’t significantly reduced, and they quickly mounted an opposition campaign. That resulted in Assembly Democrats scuttling all of it on the session’s last day.
“It’s unfortunate that [bill] was not given a vote,” Limon said, adding that the Senate was prepared to pass it.
“I don’t want us to do the easy stuff and call it a day,” Rivas told me. “I wanted to see real utility accountability. This bill did not go nearly far enough.”
It went a fair distance, however, in helping future fire victims get their insurance payouts faster. And it probably should have been passed.
Half a loaf. Bird in hand. Incremental change. Next year more incrementalism. Ultimately it can add to massive reform.
Some problems are just too tough to resolve in one sitting.
“It’s back to school for me on Monday. Loose Women is back on air and I’ve really missed it and can’t wait to see everyone,” she penned in her recent newsletter for the Mirror. “We’ll be missing two of our longest-serving Loose Women – Nadia and Denise – which I’m a bit devastated about.
“I love Nadia and she’ll be a big loss to the team. I’m so pleased for Denise, who left to focus on acting, which is her first love and she’s brilliant at it. At 66 she’s had a whole new lease of life and has never looked better.
“But it’ll be exciting to welcome new people in. One of the things I love most about the show is that it incorporates every age group, from women in their 20s to Gloria Hunniford, who’s 86. I think a show that offers that when women still have to battle ageism and having an opinion is something to be celebrated and cherished.”
Hitting back at scrutiny of a feud behind the scenes, she insisted: “I’m always reading stories about us not getting on, but it’s just not true – unless I’m missing something! I’ve never seen it and never felt it.
“So, thanks to those of you who’ve stuck by us through thick and thin for all these years, and hopefully we’ll be sticking around for years to come.”
There has been a shake-up on the panel in recent months, with Denise, 68, confirming her departure in a video in August, explaining that she would be focusing her attention on her acting career.
Nadia had been away from the show for a while before speaking out over her absence, telling the Mirror that she threatened legal action, claiming that ITV bullied her out of her job.
Discussing her exit, the 61-year-old previously said that she feared she was being targeted over speaking out for Palestinian rights.
It was recently claimed that singer Anastacia and entrepreneur Emma Grede – who recently stole the show on Dragons’ Den – were being lined up to join the panel, following the high-profile departures.
According to the Sun, they have been offered short two-month contracts with those behind the scenes hoping they will ‘bring in new perspectives’.
“If we are honest, Loose Women has become a bit of a train wreck. The past 12 months have seen scandal after scandal. Mix that with the cuts and it’s been a perfect storm,” a source told the Sun.
“ITV have offered both Emma and Anastacia contracts that will see them appear on the show as panellists. Both have been on as guests so they know the set up.”
The insider added: “Emma was a huge hit on Dragons’ Den and it’s hoped she would bring in a younger demographic to the show. Anastacia is a household name and brings in a new perspective and isn’t shy when it comes to speaking her mind.”
Two Muslim female journalists allege they were detained and brutally assaulted by police in India’s capital, Delhi. Police have denied the allegations, claiming the journalists were brought to the station over an illegal parking dispute.
“You don’t take anything for granted,” said James Aldrete, a Democratic strategist in Austin, who’s watched for years as his party wandered fruitlessly in the campaign desert. “But there is beautiful native wildlife that grows in the desert, and it’s blooming right now.”
The question — for the moment, at least — is why California hasn’t budged while Texas has become a surprise battleground.
The answer involves individual personalities, demographics and political headwinds.
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.
Of the two contests, the fight for Texas’ open Senate seat appears to be much closer. Election handicappers rate it a toss-up.
The Democrat, state Rep. James Talarico, is a highly gifted campaigner and prodigious fundraiser. But arguably the best thing he has going for his candidacy is his Republican opponent, Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, whose history of scandal, shady dealings and moral lapses trail him like dirty footprints on a white carpet.
In the race for governor, Republican Greg Abbott is facing Democratic state Rep. Gina Hinojosa as he seeks an unprecedented fourth term — “a big ask of voters,” in the words of J. Miles Coleman, who analyzes elections at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. Sabato’s Crystal Ball, the center’s forecasting project, recently moved the gubernatorial race to “likely Republican,” a shift away from “Safe Republican.”
“One of the external factors that’s making Texas competitive is the degree of wind in Democratic sails,” said Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas in Austin.
Whether it’s anti-establishment anger, directed at the party in power, or frustration with Trump, his war-making and failure to deliver the sterling economy he promised, “when you think of the problems Republicans are having at the national level … that’s helping Democrats here as well,” Henson said.
Henson, who conducts polling statewide, said another reason Texas is more competitive than California is simple mathematics: “Democrats [haven’t] fallen quite as far in Texas as Republicans have in California.”
Texas doesn’t register voters by party. But weighting political surveys by demographics and following election results, Henson expects about a 10% Republican turnout advantage in November. By contrast, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in California by nearly 2 to 1.
Yet another reason Texas appears to have grown more competitive is the apparent discontent of Latino voters, an increasingly important part of the state’s burgeoning electorate.
In recent years, as the country cleaved, California emerged as the unofficial capital of blue America, offering a political, social and cultural counterweight to Texas, the unofficial capital of red America. The two states anchor the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively, and are key to their financial well-being and the success of their candidates nationwide.
A Democratic toehold in Texas would instantly scramble long-standing political calculations, starting with the 2028 presidential race.
“It changes the narrative. It changes the demographic strategy,” Madrid said. “It changes the 270 [electoral college] map. It changes the whole strategy.”
In short, a November win would be more than symbolic, or gratification after years of Democratic futility. It would be a political earthquake.
EXCLUSIVE: Crissy Rock has admitted she would love to join the Loose Women panel following the exit of Denise Welch and revealed that there was a time she could have had a part in Coronation Street
20:14, 02 Sep 2026Updated 20:30, 02 Sep 2026
Crissy Rock has said she would like to join Loose Women as a panellist(Image: Ken McKay/ITV/Shutterstock)
Crissy Rock has revealed that she would like to join Loose Women. The actress, 67, is probably best known for playing hotel manageress Janey Yorke during the first four series of the sunny sitcom Benidorm, and has also had an incredibly successful career as a stand-up comedienne.
When it was suggested that she could act as a replacement for Denise, who recently quit after more than 20 years, Crissy said: “Oh yeah, I’ll have to get in there!” Denise, also known for her roles in Waterloo Road and Coronation Street, said she was stepping down because acting is her “first love and the thing she’s best at,” so would like to make the most of new opportunities.
Crissy shot to fame when she took on the role of Maggie in the Ken Loach film Ladybird, Ladybird in 1994 and won critical acclaim for her performance. Since then, the Liverpool-born star has appeared in episodes of Peak Practice, Brookside and Dalziel and Pascoe, whilst also treading the boards regularly in productions such as Snow White, Cinderella and Menopause the Musical.
Shortly after Crissy competed on I’m A Celebrity…Get Me Out Of Here! in 2011, there was speculation that she could be about to join the cast of Coronation Street as the sister of Jackie Dobbs, played by fellow Liverpudlian Margi Clarke – but it never came to fruition.
She said: “I’ve never done Coronation Street, ever. There was rumours, but it never, ever happened. It never come about. It would have been lovely, that, wouldn’t it? To play Margi Clark’s sister, Tyrone’s auntie. That would have been a good thing, but it just never happened.
“You always hear things. Like ‘Oh, Benidorm’s going to come back.’ but is it or isn’t it? We don’t know, and I’m just as in the dark as everyone else!”
Benidorm began in 2007 and, over the course of 10 series, followed the escapades of a group of British holidaymakers, with a host of names such as Sheridan Smith, Siobhan Finneran, and Hannah Waddingham all checking into the Solana hotel during its long run.
Whether a Benidorm revival is on the cards or not. Crissy admitted that even though she had been in the industry for years before it all began, that was the role that cemented her status in showbiz.
She said: “I’ve been an actress way before Benidorm, but I think Benidorm because of what it did and how it influenced everyone, and it become like a cult thing, it did, in my eyes, put me firmly back on the map, you know what I mean?”
SACRAMENTO — California could have some zany theater this fall: county prosecutors charging federal postmasters with felonies for obeying President Trump’s order to withhold delivery of mail ballots to voters.
Does Trump then federalize the California National Guard to protect his postmasters from local sheriffs bent on hauling them off to the jailhouse?
Just wondering after reading legislation whipping through the state Capitol.
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.
“Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating,” Trump asserted in March, while escalating his crusade against popular “absentee” voting. “Cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible what’s going on.”
It’s a big lie. There has never been any hard evidence produced by anyone, anywhere of significant mail-ballot cheating.
It’s also hypocritical because Trump routinely votes by mail himself in Florida elections.
Why is mail-voting OK for him but not for other Americans? “Because I’m president of the United States,” he told reporters. “I had a lot of different things” to do. As if the rest of us don’t. Voting apparently only needs to be convenient for him.
But Trump obsessively keeps trying to justify his false claim that Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory over him was rigged. It’s sick.
It may please his MAGA base, but Democrats and independents across America — especially in California — frown on Trump’s attack against their voting rights. They favor mail voting.
Overall, 58% of Americans support allowing ballots to be cast by mail, according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center. But there’s a huge difference between the parties — 83% of Democrats and left-leaning independents favor mail voting while 68% of Republicans oppose it.
In California, 72% of all voters approve of balloting by mail, according to a recent poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies. But there’s a big split ideologically: 93% of Democrats and 72% of independents approve, but 62% of Republicans disapprove.
Regardless of what GOP voters tell pollsters, they must be overwhelmingly voting by mail. That’s because 81% of all California ballots were cast by mail in the 2024 presidential election. In this year’s gubernatorial primary, it was up to 89%.
In March, Trump issued an executive order directing the Homeland Security Department to compile a list of eligible citizen voters in each state and commanding the U.S. Postal Service to handle only the ballots of people on the list.
Gosh? What could possibly go wrong with Trump’s Homeland Security agency — the overseer of divisive ICE — deciding who is entitled to vote in the pivotal midterm elections?
The nation’s Founders decreed in the Constitution that states could decide on “the times, places and manner” of federal elections — unless Congress wanted to alter the rules. Trump persuaded the House of Representatives to pass legislation restricting mail voting, but the bill died in the Senate, blocked by Democrats.
Trump’s executive order was an effort to bypass Congress and essentially enact a law by himself.
The Supreme Court decreed on a 6-3 vote last week that Trump could proceed with his planning. But since no precise regulations had yet been announced by the administration when the opposition lawsuit was filed, it was premature to rule on their constitutionality.
But now Trump’s draconian rules have been revealed. And California has joined other states in filing a new lawsuit.
“Donald Trump does not run elections. States do,” Gov. Gavin Newsom declared. “California will continue to lead the way in defending democracy.”
In the Legislature, a bill was introduced to make it a felony punishable by up to four years in prison for a person in authority to order the withholding of a ballot’s delivery to a voter or its return to a local election official.
A person like a postmaster? Who else could order mail carriers not to deliver ballots to some registered voters?
“That’s for law enforcement to decide,” says the bill’s author, Sen. Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward), who was just elected to finish the current term of resigned U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell.
“My bill is trying to protect all voters. They may be on vacation, they may be ill. They may want to vote early or late. Whatever. They remain entitled to vote by mail.”
Her bill breezed through three Assembly committees in 24 hours — Democrats voting yes and Republicans no.
The measure is unlikely, however, to ever result in a postmaster being jailed for obeying the president.
For starters, it’s hard to envision the president’s executive order ever being ruled constitutional — even by this lackey court.
“Trump is trying to exercise control over elections when he has absolutely no authority to do so,” UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky wrote in a Times opinion piece last week.
If the Supreme Court shockingly did rule that Trump has the authority, then could his postmasters be arrested under the new state law? Under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, the answer would seem to be “no.” Federal law generally supersedes conflicting state law.
“An executive order cannot supersede state law,” says UCLA law professor Rick Hasen, who specializes in election law. “But there are all kinds of immunity doctrines and other reasons why a state would have a hard time prosecuting a federal official for violating state law in the conduct of official duties.”
The real answer is for Trump to stop trying to concoct a solution to an election problem that only exists in his warped imagination.
The back-to-back news this week of the deaths of Dolly Parton and Tim Curry — both at age 80 — felt like an unfair and twisted threat to our peace.
Both were extraordinary cultural forces whose screen and stage work lit up and shaped our lives, so its no wonder the emotional whirlpool led to one large group chat on social media, with fans posting favorite performance clips and interview soundbites. I took comfort in many, including Parton singing “Jolene” at the Grand Ole Opry in 1988 and eight minutes of Curry in the frantic “how it was done” climax in “Clue” (1985), which he reportedly performed so intensely he had to be taken to the hospital for high blood pressure.
Our writers captured the depth of the legacy each leaves behind.
Sign up to get recommendations for the TV shows and streaming movies you can’t miss, plus exclusive interviews with the talent behind your favorite titles, in your inbox every Friday.
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.
The country music superstar’s performance in 1982’s “The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas,” which earned her a Golden Globe nomination, is one of our streaming recommendations this week. (For those seeking community while celebrating the life of Parton, AMC Theatres announced screenings for the film, as well as “Steel Magnolias,” in select locations through Sept. 2.) Our other streaming suggestion, if you need a life vest to keep afloat through the tears, is a series featuring veteran fashion police partners reuniting again — this time, to dole out critiques of fictional characters.
Also in this week’s Screen Gab, we spoke with actor Kristen Johnston about the Season 2 return of “Leanne.” Best known for her role as Sally Solomon in the hit ’90s sitcom “3rd Rock From the Sun,” Johnston has built a career bringing laughs to comedies like TV Land’s “The Exes” and CBS’ “Mom.” Lately, she’s been bringing her seasoned comedy skills to Netflix’s multi-cam sitcom, which captures the messy (and funny) experiences of women navigating midlife — like dealing with menopause or the horrors of the modern dating scene. Stand-up comedian Leanne Morgan stars as the titular character, while Johnston plays her brutally honest sister, Carol.
“Not every show has to be, you know, medieval dragons,” Johnston says. “There’s room for a couple of silly women in their 50s trying to figure it out.” Read more from Johnston in Guest Spot. In the meantime, I’m off to mix and bake a cuppa flour, a cuppa sugar and a cuppa fruit cocktail with the juice at 350 till it’s gold and bubbly. See you next week. — Yvonne Villarreal
Turn on
Recommendations from the film and TV experts at The Times
Dolly Parton as Miss Mona in the 1982 movie “The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.”
(Universal Pictures)
“The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas” (VOD)
Dolly Parton cemented her movie star status with her feature debut “9 to 5” alongside Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin. But outside of the irresistible title song, Parton did not sing in the film. She makes up for it with her second film, 1982’s “The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.” Adapted from the Broadway musical, the country superstar dazzles as Miss Mona Stangley, the proprietress of the popular “Chicken Ranch” brothel. With her characteristic down-home charm, she makes her place of business seem as wholesome as apple (“There’s lots of goodwill and maybe one small thrill, but there’s nothing dirty going on,” she sings in the opening number). Parton also contributed two extra songs to the soundtrack alongside the original Broadway score, including her hit “I Will Always Love You.” — Greg Braxton
Clinton Kelly, left, and Stacy London in “Why’d They Wear That?”
(Jordan Petsy / Simple Alien)
“Why’d They Wear That?” (YouTube)
Stacy London and Clinton Kelly are back with a third “Wear” show, after “What Not To Wear” and last year’s “Wear Whatever the F You Want.” This one’s for the Stacy and Clinton fans, as it removes the clients and makeover elements and sits the hosts on a bed together in front of a TV as they critique what characters wear in the movies, viewing film through the lens of clothing, hair and makeup. (It’s very smart.) The films and actors they highlight are meaningful to one or the other — they don’t always agree — which is to say they broadly represent the tastes of people born in 1969. The range of subjects encompasses “Meatballs,” “Poltergeist,” “Best in Show,” “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” and “The Empire Strikes Back,” in which episode you will learn that London views Darth Vader as “the Karl Lagerfeld of outer space” (“monochromatic dressing … quiet luxury and he doesn’t change — he invests in his pieces”). One episode is a tribute to Catherine O’Hara. With no one’s feelings to dance around, they can be as critical as they like, but snark isn’t the point so much as celebration and the delight of old friends sharing their own, often self-deprecating stories. Come for the analysis, stay for the laughter, or vice versa. — Robert Lloyd
Guest spot
A weekly chat with actors, writers, directors and more about what they’re working on — and what they’re watching
Leanne Morgan, left, and Kristen Johnston in Season 2 of “Leanne.”
(Patrick Mcelhenney / Netflix)
In “Leanne,” Kristen Johnston plays the ultimate ride-or-die sister you want in your corner — she turns chaotic moments into fun, tells the hard truths and provides unwavering emotional support. The Netflix sitcom stars comedienne Leanne Morgan as a woman trying to rebuild her life after her husband of 33 years left her for someone else. Helping her navigate the emotional rubble is her family, including her fiercely loyal, unfiltered, twice-divorced sister, Carol (Johnston). As Leanne confronts more change in Season 2, like turning 60 and coming to terms with aging parents that require more care, Carol remains a blunt support system. Over the phone, Johnston discussed her connection to the themes explored in the comedy and the genre of TV that has her hooked these days. — Y.V.
Change continues to be a theme in Season 2. It opens with Leanne resisting the idea of turning 60 and still not ready to be alone with herself. Carol is there to remind her that she’s capable. Tell me about your 50s, Kristen. How are you feeling about this stage of your life and the prospect of turning 60?
Oh my God! Honestly, I never even thought I’d make it to my 50s. So, the fact that I’m still here is a pretty big miracle. My 50s has just continued to be about trying to figure out my place in the world and deepening my friendships with my friends, my family. That’s about it.
Are there things you used to worry about that now you’re like, “I can handle that”?
I used to worry about everything, and now I really couldn’t give a s—. I don’t live for other people’s opinions anymore, and that was probably something I lived for for a long time. When you get fame really early, you just condition yourself to not make anyone upset and not get found out by the tabloids or be stalked. I don’t know. I do enjoy really just trying to live. Other people’s opinions matter to me, but they’re not the reason I do or don’t do anything.
You and Leanne both get a chance to play with the idea of getting older early in the season with a daydream sequence about being in the retirement home. What was that like? It hits at such a big topic that many people come to grips with at some point, which is the idea of caring for aging parents.
That’s a huge topic this season, and it one it matters to me because my mom is still here — thank God. But it’s stuff that really comes up a lot. When it’s time to get them into a home, it’s so hard, and of course, they never want to go. Who would? But literally doing that scene was so great because I’m so into prosthetics and makeup. We had a lot of fun coming up with what each of us would be.
Kristen Johnston, left, and Leanne Morgan in “Leanne.”
(Patrick Mcelhenney / Netflix)
The bond between Leanne and Carol is such an important element of the show. What do you think this show really gets right about sisterhood?
It feels very real. You have one who’s a black sheep and always blamed for everything, then you’ve got one who’s the Goody Two-shoes and got married at the right time and had kids. Carol did none of that. But throughout that, and much more important than the rivalry and being mad at each other or whatever, is just this absolute unending love. And I feel very sisterly towards Leanne. I get really emotional about her because I feel like she’s my sister. They’re pretty easy scenes to act.
You’ve worked in multi-cam sitcoms across broadcast, cable and streaming. Do you feel a difference?
I don’t know if it’s as much that they’re different, but the times sure have been different. I’m from the era where we would have the head of the studio come to every taping and send us cards and thank you or call you to come over to his house for his 60th birthday or whatever. That doesn’t really happen anymore. I’m from this other era, which really felt more personal and felt more one-on-one. Now it really just feels like, “Don’t look at me. I just want thanks for the paycheck.”
And it seems hard to even gauge how well the shows are doing.
Exactly. Leanne was so nervous about all that at first, and I just said, “Look, all we can do is our our best. Let’s just be funny and have fun, and everything else is above our pay grade.” So she went with that. That’s how we kind of roll.
OK, tell me — how often are you asked about the “Splat!” episode of “Sex and the City”? How often do people come up to you about Lexi?
It’s crazy. It’s all anybody wants to talk about, any podcasters or anything. Really, I would say 80% of the conversations I’ve had in the last few weeks are focused mainly on that.
What does that tell you that a role that was a one-off could have that kind of lasting impact?
It’s the shock of what happens in that scene more than almost anything. There was kind of this angry “I’m gonna live no matter what” vibe to her. So to watch her fall to her death out of her own hubris, it’s just a perfect little encapsulation of a moment in New York City, and I think that’s why people love it. It’s also probably one of the bigger, bigger acting choices I’ve ever made. That was Michael Patrick King. I can’t believe it still matters to people, but obviously, I’m thrilled it does. I did like three takes [of the fall]. And it could have been the stunt woman [who made the cut]. I honestly don’t know who they cut to for what.
Because when people say, “Are you a Carrie? Are you a Charlotte?” A lot of people say, “I’m Lexi.”
They tell me that all the time. I just go, “Oh, babes.” I wouldn’t really want to cling to her as like an inspiration for your character, but I think what they mean is they’re probably bawdy. There are worse things to be in life.
What’s the most recent thing you watched that you’re obsessed with?
I’ve gone down the K-drama rabbit hole. And something I loved is this C-drama called “Pursuit of Jade” on Netflix. It’s so well-done, really good and very thrilling. A period show. Love it. I’ve been sucked into that. Oh, for K-drama — “Bon Appétit, Your Majesty.” That’s pretty much where I’ve been living.
What’s your go-to comfort watch?
I like spooky, weird stuff like “True Detective,” “Broadchurch.” I just did a rewatch. I can’t believe “Broadchurch” is my comfort show. Anything with really good character development, fantastic acting. I love it.
The FBI has charged two men with scamming at least 26 women out of $1.3 million in four states. One of the alleged fraudsters posed as a San Francisco 49ers player.
Daejon Labrayae Love, 35, and Taylor Jamie Chan, 18, have been charged in federal court in Portland, Ore., with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
From February 2022 until they were arrested on Monday, Love and Chan solicited money from women in California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho through lies and misrepresentations, according to the United States Attorney’s Office in Portland.
Love portrayed himself on Instagram as a 49ers wide receiver who went undrafted but worked his way onto the roster. He met most of the women through dating apps and developed romantic relationships with many of them, according to the FBI. Chan falsely posed as Love’s financial adviser.
In an Instagram Story titled “NFL Journey,” Love held a 49ers helmet while driving and said, “I’m on my way to get my mom. I know I get a lot of fans who want to know how football works or how I got involved in the league…. If you know me and see me in person I’ll explain.
“I chose SF because it was the right time. I was kind of already living in the Bay and it just worked out for me.” Love’s monologue is interrupted momentarily by beeps from his car and he says, “I’m in my new McLaren and it’s just real touch-and-go.”
Then he posts a screenshot of a webpage AI Overview that says “Daejon Love is a wide receiver for the San Francisco 49ers, and information about his position, contract and teammate texting habits is available online. He is also associated with the team in various social media content and articles.”
Back on the screen, Love says, “That’s Google. That’s not me, that’s Google.”
He goes on to explain why he isn’t playing, lifting a crooked finger to the camera and saying he is injured. He concludes the story by again saying he wants “full transparency” because “people ask, what do I do? How can I afford a $500,000 car? How can I afford a $300,000 [Lamborghini] Urus? “
He repeats that he’s going to pick up his mom, then concludes by inviting those watching to reach out to him to meet in person.
“The scheme relied on Love’s creation of fictitious personas and display of a lavish lifestyle which Love presented to victims both in person and on social media websites,” federal authorities said in a press release.
“Chan and Love also hosted three-way FaceTime calls in which they showed victims falsified investment gains and encouraged victims to part with their money. Victims sent Love and Chan money due to their belief that their money would be invested in legitimate investment vehicles on the victims’ behalf.”
The FBI said Love instructed several women who did not have cash to invest to take out personal loans, assuring them they would quickly be repaid.
Love and Chan were taken into custody on Monday at the Boise (Idaho) Airport and have a court appearance Thursday in Portland.
Love, who traveled to New Mexico, California, Oregon, Nevada, Utah and Idaho since July 15, according to investigators, allegedly has used several names including Jon Love, Daejon Love, Avril Lyto Love and Jordan Love. Twenty-six potential victims have been identified, and the FBI believes there are more.
Just after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in 2022, ending the nationwide right to legal abortion, Olivia Rodrigo walked onstage at the Glastonbury festival in the United Kingdom, sad and furious but also galvanized. “I’m heartbroken over what happened in America yesterday,” Rodrigo said onstage then. “I’m devastated and terrified that so many women and so many girls are going to die because of this.”
Four years later, Rodrigo has a new festival of her own this weekend, Daisy Chain Fields in Irvine’s Great Park, that’s entirely in service to those causes of women’s rights and reproductive autonomy.
“I remember being at Glastonbury that day with the most exciting opportunity to perform on that stage, but at the same time, being shaken to my core knowing that women’s rights were being stripped away,” Rodrigo told the Times via e-mail just before the festival. “I want people to walk away from here feeling hopeful and feeling like they can effect change. That was the entire thesis of this festival. I do think we can. We’ve seen it happen before, and we’re seeing some change now.”
Daisy Chain Fields is an ambitious escalation of Rodrigo’s activism in this sphere, which has paralleled her chart-topping success after debuting as a teenager with her LP “Sour” in 2021. The festival — with similarly-aligned acts including Chappell Roan, Doechii, Bikini Kill, Katseye and others — will be a globally-prominent cultural event, underlining the urgency for reproductive and women’s rights work amid the current right-wing backlash. It raises funds to benefit 10 like-minded advocacy groups, and intertwines her music career and women’s rights advocacy in ways few pop artists at her scale are attempting.
“We are ecstatic to have Olivia supporting our work, not only financially, but using her voice and reach to shine a light on these urgent issues,” said Nancy Northup, president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which challenged abortion bans in 11 states, and filed the first lawsuit on behalf of women denied abortions in 50 years. “Women are continuing to suffer under these bans, and that won’t stop until abortion is federally protected once again. Her support will help us continue filing lawsuits and advocating for laws that expand reproductive rights, both in the U.S. and globally.”
Olivia Rodrigo performs during the opening night of her Guts tour at Acrisure Arena on Feb. 23, 2024, in Palm Desert, Calif.
(Michael Blackshire / Los Angeles Times)
Rodrigo’s public work in activism began in earnest on the tour for “Guts” in February 2024. That tour coincided with the launch of Rodrigo’s Fund 4 Good, a nonprofit (under the fiscal sponsorship of the 501(c)(3) group Entertainment Industry Foundation) that steered $2.5 million in profits and donations from that tour to a range of global groups working in women’s rights, health and reproductive care. These included Jhpiego — a Johns Hopkins-affiliated global women’s health NGO — along with Women’s Shelters Canada, Women Against Violence Europe, and the Korea Foundation for Women.
“She did something. She could have played it safe, but she acknowledged that she has the power to make stuff happen, and she’s going to use it for good,” said Kathleen Hanna, founder of the legendarily activist punk group Bikini Kill, who will play Daisy Chain Fields on Saturday. While Hanna recalled feeling initially skeptical about the all-women Lilith Fair in the ’90s, she respects how Rodrigo learned about that fest’s communal, radical goals from a recent documentary, and sought to update it for her fans’ generation.
“What’s awesome about that is that it’s not that rare” for artists to be outspoken on these issues now, Hanna said. “Look at Megan Thee Stallion, Hayley Williams — all I see is women who are like ‘This is bull—.’ In a fascist era, we need to be meeting each other and opening friendship circles instead of isolating ourselves.”
Rodrigo’s advocacy hasn’t always gone smoothly. While on tour for “Guts” in 2024, Rodrigo brought abortion rights groups under the National Network of Abortion Funds to canvass at shows, and some groups handed out free condoms and emergency contraceptives to fans. Those efforts upset conservatives in states like Missouri, which had enacted a near-total abortion ban, and where state legislators sought to ban the morning-after pill. Fearing political backlash, Rodrigo’s management team at the time reportedly asked the groups to refrain from passing out contraceptives, but still encouraged them to canvass on-site.
“I don’t think demanding that women and girls be safe and have ownership over their own bodies is a radical idea,” Rodrigo said. “I was raised by parents who encouraged that belief in me.”
At Daisy Chain Fields, Rodrigo will likely face little resistance — but the show arrives in an ever more challenging time for women’s health and rights.
The return of President Trump to office has resulted in legislation like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that slashed funding for healthcare; decimated funding for groups like USAID; and saw controversial, conspiracy-pushing figures like Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. brought into government. Crucial issues in women’s health risked being ignored or exacerbated.
“It is a fraught moment” said Angela Aina, co-founder and executive director of the Black Mamas Matter Alliance, one of the groups supported by Daisy Chain Fields. Aina said that American Black women die in childbirth at three times the rate for white women, and 87% of these deaths were preventable.
“What matters most to us is that the festival is showing people the organizations that are doing this work and pushing solutions,” Aina added. “Black maternal health has too often been treated as a niche concern, something discussed among public health professionals and then set aside.” But when these topics underpin a massive, sold-out festival of music with an audience of young women, it becomes “part of ordinary civic life,” she said.
These organizations said Rodrigo made a real effort to connect personally with their teams and more closely learn about their issues and strategies. Some, like the National Institute for Reproductive Health and Planned Parenthood, focus on reproductive justice. Baby2Baby supports mothers in poverty while Johns Hopkins Center for Indigenous Health focuses on Native and First Nations community healthcare; FreeFrom responds to the epidemic of gender-based violence, while the National Domestic Workers Alliance advocates for care workers, the vast majority of whom are women.
“It’s really extraordinary,” said National Domestic Workers Alliance President Ai-Jen Poo. “[She’s] making the time to come to meetings and learn about each organization directly from us, offering to think through different ways that she can lift up our work even beyond the festival.”
Part of NDWA’s mission is to change the cultural conversation around domestic labor — “We as a culture often refer to it as ‘help,’ as opposed to the profession that it is for millions of workers,” Poo said — an undertaking Poo said Rodrigo understands well.
“I think that she is a great storyteller herself through her music, and she knows that great storytelling is at the heart of what moves people and what creates change for people,” she said.
Olivia Rodrigo speaks at the beginning of the July 14, 2021, daily briefing at the White House in Washington, where she was filming a video to promote vaccines.
(Susan Walsh / Associated Press)
The National Women’s Law Center works across virtually every issue affecting women and girls in the United States. “One of the things I like to say is that our fingerprints are on the lives of women in this country in ways that they’re probably not even aware of,” said Uma Iyer, NWLC’s chief external affairs officer.
Iyer said that the “constant conversation” between law, policy and culture change is at the heart of the NWLC’s work, and Rodrigo’s advocacy keeps that conversation urgent.
“We’ve seen that in how #MeToo played out. That spawned litigation, but it was also a big global cultural moment,” Iyer said. “You’re talking about it at kitchen tables and movie theaters and on talk shows, and that discourse really matters when you’re trying to effect change.”
Each of the nonprofits will have a physical presence at the festival in Irvine’s Great Park. For their station, Poo said the NDWA will set up a space for visitors to learn about care work and pay tribute to the caregivers in their own lives through artwork, which will all knit together “in a big chain of care” by the festival’s end.
“We’re really excited about all the people who will come to our tent and have a conversation with us and stay involved in our movement long afterwards,” she said. “We feel like Daisy Chain is almost like a catalyst for really growing this movement for care in our country.”
Several organizers said the recognition and opportunities for connection that the festival brings are just as meaningful as whatever financial support it generates.
While the festival’s total donation pool is yet unclear, Rodrigo has said that all artists on the lineup are performing for free, though production and staffing costs for a fest this size will be substantial.
What money the nonprofit groups do receive will go right back into “continuing the work,” Iyer said. “The work of gender justice in whatever form it shows up for any of these 10 organizations is really the work of protecting our democracy.”
Money generated by Daisy Chain Fields will be “flexible dollars,” Iyer explained, usable for anything an organization needs to fill in the gaps. “Those are critical dollars for nonprofits to be able to survive and do the work,” she said. Beyond the impact for populations the organization serves, Iyer said the promise of Daisy Chain Fields has boosted morale among NWLC staff during an extremely difficult time in America.
“When you have this big festival with people you love to hear, who bring you joy and bring you comfort and peace and entertainment and laughs and love, and they’re all banding together because this one incredible person asked them to, because she believes it’s the right thing to do — it makes the work a little less hard.”
The work seems to be catching on. Roan, long outspoken on LGBTQ+ rights issues, will throw the Super Graphic Spectacular concert at the Shrine in Los Angeles on Oct. 21-22, benefiting trans youth through Roan’s Midwest Princess Project. Last year, Doechii told the audience at the GLAAD Media Awards in L.A. that as ”hard-won cultural change and rights for transgender people and the LGBTQ+ community have been threatened,” the superstar rapper was “disgusted” by the revanchism.
“Olivia’s involvement is such a gift, because she is reaching and educating young people who may feel checked out or hopeless on these issues,” Northup said. “Olivia is giving us a chance to meet young people where they’re at, and she’s approaching it with positivity. Her message is not about what we’ve lost, it’s about what we can accomplish if we channel our collective power as women and girls.”
Rodrigo just followed up her acclaimed LP “You Seem Pretty Sad for a Girl So in Love” with a new single, “Serena Joy,” titled after a character in Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” who complies with an oppressive theocracy.
“If they do it to them, they’re gonna do it to you,” Rodrigo sang, with a fury that brooks no room for despair.
“There’s a growing sentiment among young people and women that we have to create change, and hopefully people are inspired, whether it’s by engaging with some of our NPO partners or simply finding whatever way feels right to them,” Rodrigo said. “There is no doubt in my mind that protecting women and girls, and ensuring they have ownership over their own bodies, has to be a priority for all of us.”
Where, Robert Garcia must consider, does one begin?
Garcia is a two-term Democratic congressman from Long Beach. He’s the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, which makes him the top Democrat on the panel charged with patrolling and policing operations of the federal government — a role congressional Republicans have conspicuously abdicated. If, as seems likely, his party wins control of the House in November, Garcia is poised to take over as chairman.
After two years of reckless abandon, the most obvious target for some badly needed congressional oversight is the crooked occupant of the White House. Like a shoreline strewn with seashells or a meadow bursting with mushrooms, President Trump’s brazen corruption and naked self-dealing offer a field that is ripe for the plucking.
So, given the gavel, where to start?
“First we have to ensure that people understand that this president and the administration, what they’re doing, is unprecedented and the most corrupt administration we’ve ever seen,” Garcia said.
To wit: In just his first year back in the Oval Office, Trump reported earning at least $2.2 billion, which is 5,500 times the president’s $400,000 annual salary. (No wonder he gives away his paycheck.) But it’s not just Trump who’s raking it in hand over fist.
“You have Jared Kushner getting billions from the Saudis and other foreign governments,” Garcia said. “You have [Trump’s sons] doing real estate deals across the country, being on boards that are getting contracts from the federal government. You have the selling of pardons. I mean, the list goes on…. It is just like an endless amount of corruption.”
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.
Before he digs in, however, Garcia has to win reelection in November.
A vote, then a reckoning?
His reconfigured congressional district, which straddles Los Angeles and Orange counties, is somewhat less friendly than it used to be. As part of a redrawing under Proposition 50, the 2025 measure California voters passed to boost Democratic membership in the House, the lines were extended south, to take in the Trump-friendly territory of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. (The remap gave away a chunk of Garcia’s Democratic voters to bolster other districts.)
Still, the odds are strongly in his favor — especially in a midterm election serving as a referendum on the deeply unpopular incumbent.
Though his district leans left even after modification, Garcia said his pursuit of Trump isn’t some ideological bender. The president’s malfeasance is something constituents raise often, he said. “It’s corruption and it is affordability,” Garcia said this week from his district office in Long Beach. “Those are the two issues I hear constantly about. It’s just nonstop.”
Apart from Trump and his family, Garcia has a long list of administration officials he’d like to hold to account, and an even longer list of questions he’d like answered.
Why, for instance, are “JD Vance and Susie Wiles and Kash Patel having secret meetings in the Situation Room about the Epstein files?” Garcia asked, name-checking, respectively, the vice president, White House chief of staff and FBI director. “Why is [White House Deputy Chief of Staff] Stephen Miller out there essentially creating this huge … loss-of-due-process crisis in this country as it relates to what he’s doing with” Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security?
Also, Garcia said, he wonders what businesses have gotten in return for their generous giving to this most avaricious of administrations.
“If you are cutting secret deals with the Trumps, if you are helping to set up these these crypto schemes, if you are paying for this ballroom that no one knows about and you are gaining some sort of favor from the presidency,” he said, “we need to understand exactly what’s going on.”
For that reason, Garcia said, “not only does there have to be efforts made by the Congress and the House … we also have to partner with our state partners and attorneys general and governors and outside organizations…. I think the state court process is going to also be really important for us.”
Impeachment in abeyance
Impeachment, which has a visceral appeal to certain of those deeply aggrieved by this lawless president, is not a first resort, Garcia said. Nor, he suggested, is it necessarily the second or third resort.
“I don’t think you ever take anything off the table, and that includes impeachment,” Garcia said. “But that’s not our focus on Day One…. It’s time for [Democrats] to work on actually passing a forward-looking agenda and making sure that we are taking on this family and these dealings that are clearly the most threatening we’ve ever seen. To me, that has to be the immediate priority in front of us.”
Garcia and fellow Democrats are mindful of what’s driving unhappy voters who face a vexing mix of inflation and weak economic growth. Affordability is, for good reason, the central issue this election season.
But accountability matters, too. Indeed, in Trump’s debauched Washington, it’s long overdue.
That’s something else voters should consider in November.
SACRAMENTO — Memo to Democrats and independents: Just because an idea emanates from a Republican, doesn’t mean it necessarily stinks. Here are two examples.
Legislators wearing red jerseys have proposed to:
Make the California secretary of state officially nonpartisan. Rip off the seemingly inevitable blue jersey and replace it with a neutral referee’s garb.
Similarly, seize the job of writing official ballot proposition titles and summaries from the partisan attorney general and hand it to the nonpartisan, universally trusted Legislative Analyst‘s Office.
Both ideas, of course, were dead on arrival when introduced in the Democratic-dominated state Legislature, which is about to wrap up a two-year session.
The secretary of state is the chief overseer of California elections. That office holder, regardless of party, has never favored one side over the other in balloting, although many GOP politicians have been parroting Pied Piper Trump’s nonsense about election rigging.
California Republicans pushing to neutralize the office argue that Democratic incumbent Shirley Weber has taken public policy positions that echo her party’s stands. Shock! This is America. She has a right — a democratic duty — to take any position vocally that she desires.
But it’s logical for the secretary of state to officially operate as a political nonpartisan — as does the state superintendent of public instruction and all county voter registrars, who actually administer the elections and count votes.
“The secretary should be calling balls and strikes as opposed to being on the red team or a blue team.”
Realistically, no red team member is likely to win any statewide office in California for the foreseeable future, given that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans by nearly 2 to 1 and Trump is widely detested in this state.
“Sometimes Trump does make it harder in California for Republicans,” Wagner acknowledges.
Sign up for the L.A. Times California Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox twice per week.
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.
The legislation to make the secretary of state nonpartisan was a proposed California constitutional amendment, introduced by Republican Assemblymembers Natasha Johnson of Lake Elsinore and Josh Hoover of Folsom.
But it was submitted so late in the legislative session that there was no chance of it ever receiving a committee hearing. It didn’t really matter anyway. Even if it had been introduced on Jan. 1, Democrats would have instinctively tossed it in the trash.
They’re never going to make it remotely possible for a Republican to win this office any time soon.
The measure’s authors say their proposal would help “restore Californians’ trust in the electoral system.”
Actually, the only Californians who largely distrust the electoral system are Republicans. And the best way to fix that is for Trump to shut up and stop telling lies about stolen elections and hordes of undocumented immigrants voting illegally.
Of the two Republican proposals, the most significant is the one stripping the attorney general of the power to write titles and summaries of ballot measures.
Often, the only thing many voters know about a proposition is what they’re told in the title. They aren’t inclined to wade through neutral details in the official state Voter Information Guide.
The legislative analyst is a political noncombatant appointed by the Legislature and basically agreed to by both sides. The highly respected policy wonk already writes the proposition analyses included in the voter guide. Why not also the measures’ titles?
Increasingly in recent years under Democrats, including projected next governor Xavier Becerra, the attorney general has been dishing out party propaganda in official proposition titles.
State law requires the attorney general to provide an “impartial statement of the purpose of the measure” in language unlikely “to create prejudice for or against” the proposal.
But often on hotly contested measures, the language reads like talking points for the blue side.
The latest example is Proposition 39, a Republican proposal requiring Californians to show identification when voting. Election officials also would have to verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens.
I’m no fan of that measure. It overreaches, is unnecessary, could suppress voting and is merely a tool to drive up the GOP vote. Democratic legislative leaders and the party are fiercely opposed.
But Proposition 39’s title is unfairly negative and loaded against the measure. It reads: “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.” All some voters will focus on are the first four words.
Proponents sued, but judges are historically reluctant to interfere in election campaigns. A Sacramento judge OKd Democratic Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s biased wording.
The legislation for nonpartisan labeling of propositions cleared the Senate Elections Committee but later was quietly killed behind closed doors in the Senate Appropriations Committee, a notorious graveyard for measures sentenced to execution by legislative leaders.
“The Democratic leadership doesn’t want it passed,” notes the author, Sen. Roger Niello of Sacramento County, who recently was elected the next Senate minority leader. “If they kill it [in appropriations] nobody has to vote on it and it dies without fingerprints.”
That’s common legislative games-playing: Keep potentially popular but politically undesirable bills off chamber floors so majority party members can avoid shamefully voting “no.”
But these are still excellent Republican ideas.
There are times when politics should be taken out of elections.
The two men, detained in the western city of Herat on August 9, were released on Thursday morning and appear to be in good health, says the UN.
Published On 21 Aug 202621 Aug 2026
Afghanistan’s Taliban authorities have released two United Nations staff members who were detained more than a week ago, though the reason for their detention remains unclear, the UN said.
The two men were detained in the western city of Herat on August 9. The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said they were released on Thursday morning and appeared to be in good health.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
“UNAMA has not been formally notified of the reasons for their arrest and detention and continues to follow up with the de facto authorities,” the UN said in a statement, adding it understood that charges against the two had been dropped.
It said the organisation was also following up “to ensure respect for the privileges and immunities of the United Nations, as well as the safety, security and freedom of movement of United Nations and associated personnel throughout the country”.
The arrests were the latest in a series of detentions by Afghanistan’s Taliban authorities. Last week, Human Rights Watch said six staff members of a local organisation working on women’s and children’s rights had been “forcibly disappeared” for more than a month.
“For us, we’re just delighted that [the two staff members] have been released, they’re in good health, and they face apparently no more judicial legal issues,” UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters at the organisation’s headquarters in New York.
Afghan authorities did not immediately comment on the release.
Multiple UN agencies operate across Afghanistan in a range of areas, including health and humanitarian response. The country has been hit hard by international aid cuts and faces numerous challenges, including the return of millions of its citizens from Iran and Pakistan in recent years.
The UN mission’s mandate from the UN Security Council includes promoting and supporting humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people, as well as promoting human rights, equality for women and girls, inclusive governance and economic stability.
The Taliban seized power in Afghanistan on August 15, 2021, as the United States and NATO forces withdrew from the country after two decades of war.
Shortly after, they barred girls from education beyond primary school and banned women from nearly all employment, effectively excluding women and girls from public life. They have also removed minimum-age protections for girls’ marriage and made domestic violence punishable only in cases in which a woman has suffered visible injuries or broken bones.
For Welsh fans, the arrival of the tour offers a chance to watch a strong contingent of homegrown riders racing alongside some of the sports biggest names, including 2024 winner and two-time world champion, Lotte Kopecky (SD Worx – Protime).
Among the Welsh headliners is British champion Zoe Backstedt who goes into stage 3 in 51st, 2 minutes 48 seconds behind leader, Lorena Wiebes (SD Worx – Protime).
The 21-year-old is competing less than three weeks on from making her highly anticipated Tour de France (TdF) Femmes debut, where she finished 50th overall.
Racing on home roads will offer Backstedt another exciting opportunity to build on what has already been a successful season.
The Canyon-SRAM rider has won British road race and time trial titles plus a sprint stage at the Tour de Suisse Femmes, and retained the 2026 Baloise Ladies Tour title a year after becoming the youngest winner of the race.
And she has her elder sister, Elynor Backstedt who rides for UAE Team L’IMAD, for company, making this year’s race a family affair, with their father Magnus also taking on a sport director role for Human Powered Health.
That’s not partiality or wish casting on the part of your friendly political columnist. The fact is Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents overwhelmingly outnumber Republicans in California, in both registration and inclination.
The gregarious and media-savvy Hilton has been waging an energetic and effervescent run for governor, with multiple appearances a day and frequent updates to his cheeky social media accounts.
“He’s going to San Francisco” — into the bowels of the liberal beast — “he’s going into schools, talking to labor groups,” said Hector Barajas, a campaign spokesman. “He’ll go everywhere.”
Becerra not so much.
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.
That said, if Hilton is flat-out running for a job he stands virtually no chance of winning, Becerra is embarked on more of a leisurely stroll toward his all-but-certain perch in Sacramento.
That’s not a terrible thing at this midsummer stage of the race. Once, in the blessed era before the 24/7 news cycle and the omnipresence of social media, there was a lull in the months after the primary, with campaign activities picking back up around Labor Day.
On Tuesday, during a walking tour of Los Angeles’ Little Tokyo neighborhood, Becerra pushed back on the notion he was taking his election — and California voters — for granted. “If I were trying to coast,” he told reporters, “I’d be out on the coast right now instead of here with you all.”
Becerra’s pace aside, the days between now and the Nov. 3 election offer him plenty of time to spell out what, exactly, he has to offer his home state and how, in a broad sense, he plans to tackle one of the highest profile, most vexing jobs in all of American politics.
At least one of those days should include a face-to-face debate between Hilton and Becerra. The two shared a stage multiple times during the primary season. They have not appeared together since.
More than a half-dozen news organizations have offered to host the gubernatorial rivals in a one-on-one session. Several other groups have proposed forums that would allow them to discuss their differences together in person.
Barajas, the spokesman for Hilton’s campaign, said the Republican hopeful has agreed to each and every invitation.
“He’s got absolutely no problem” appearing anytime or anywhere, Barajas said. “He will go to East L.A.. He will go to South-Central. He will go into the heart of the Central Valley. It doesn’t matter to him.”
That’s no surprise.
When a candidate is an underdog, like Hilton, they’ll typically show up at the opening of an envelope if it means appearing before a crowd. Conversely, a candidate on a seeming glide path to election, like Becerra, will often balk at giving their opponent the exposure afforded by a debate, much less risk harming themselves with a bad performance.
There’s a lot of virtue signaling that surrounds the notion of candidate debates.
Far from a high-minded discussion of policy differences, they often devolve into a stale recitation of talking points and pre-scripted zingers. After a while, debates can grow redundant and, frankly, boring as contestants repeat well-worn phrases and replow deeply furrowed ground. Such was the case by the time California’s gubernatorial hopefuls met for their sixth televised debate in the spring.
Most voters — many of whom profess to care oh-so-deeply about issues and matters of great import — don’t even bother tuning in. If they found debates that captivating, shows such as the “PBS NewsHour” would routinely outdraw the latest season of “Love Island USA.”
No matter.
There is an audience, however limited, for debates. Even if they don’t bother watching, many voters read about the encounters afterward, catch snippets online, or glean useful insights from the extensive coverage that follows.
Above all, a willingness to debate is a sign of respect — for voters as well as the political process the candidates are a part of. Minimizing direct confrontation with Hilton may play to Becerra’s inherently cautious nature. It also makes sense from a purely strategic standpoint.
But it doesn’t serve the people of California, or give voters their due. This is a campaign for governor. Not a coronation.
Becerra owes California, and Hilton, the chance to take the candidates’ measure side by side before their contest is over. The sooner Becerra commits to a time and place, the better.
