New congressional maps approved by California voters were drawn with the goal of flipping five Republican-held seats to Democrats. Three of those GOP incumbents were left with little chance of survival once their districts turned solidly blue. But in the two remaining battlegrounds, seats Democrats consider essential to retaking the House, costly and divisive primary fights have left Democratic nominees with noticeably thinner campaign accounts heading into the general election.

In the Central Valley’s 22nd District, Republican incumbent David Valadao reported more than $3.3 million in cash on hand, according to federal filings submitted this week. His Democratic challenger, community college professor and school board member Randy Villegas, has just $571,000 available. Villegas had to fight off Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains, the candidate favored by the Democratic establishment, in a bruising primary that forced his campaign to spend more than $1.45 million in the two months before the June 2 election. Valadao, by contrast, spent less than $280,000 over that same stretch.

Farther south, in the 48th District, Republican San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond holds roughly $1.2 million in reserve. His Democratic opponent, San Diego City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert, has $825,000 on hand after beating back a primary challenge from fellow Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar.

A similar pattern is playing out in the Sacramento suburbs, where Rep. Kevin Kiley, who left the Republican Party to run as an independent, has more than $2.1 million banked. His Democratic rival, former state Sen. Richard Pan, has just $359,000 available.

The gap has been amplified by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month that struck down long-standing limits on how much political parties can spend in direct coordination with the candidates they back. Previously, television stations were required to give candidates their lowest advertising rates, while political parties and outside groups paid significantly more for the same airtime — a dynamic that tended to favor Democrats, who generally out-raise Republicans through small-dollar donations. The court’s decision effectively extends those discounted ad rates to party committees as well, and the Republican National Committee currently has far deeper pockets than its Democratic counterpart.

As of the end of May, the RNC reported more than $125 million in the bank, while the Democratic National Committee was more than $3 million in debt, according to federal records. The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP’s campaign arm, has more than $81 million on hand — more than double what its Democratic counterpart has available.

“This is another arrow in Republicans’ quiver heading into November,” said RNC spokesman Nick Poche in a written statement.

Democratic strategists, however, aren’t sounding alarms just yet. Paul Mitchell, a Democratic political data expert who studies redistricting, said the ruling likely won’t be as decisive as Republicans hope.

“I don’t see this as being, like, the biggest unlock,” Mitchell said, noting that well-funded Republican campaigns likely would have found ways to direct outside money to competitive races regardless of the ruling. He said the decision will more likely reshape how Democratic campaigns divide responsibilities — for example, allowing party committees to handle television advertising while candidates redirect their own funds toward field organizing and voter outreach.

Despite trailing in cash reserves, Democratic candidates in California’s competitive districts still out-fundraised their Republican rivals in the period leading up to the primary. Villegas brought in nearly twice as much as Valadao in the reporting period ending June 30. Von Wilpert outpaced Desmond by more than 3-to-1, collecting roughly $871,000 compared to his $272,000.

It remains uncertain whether national Republican committees will actually direct significant resources into California’s expensive media markets, even with more cash available to spend. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report currently lists just 18 of the nation’s 435 House seats as true toss-ups, with 10 leaning Democratic and nine leaning Republican.

“They want to play where they can win seats,” said longtime California GOP consultant Rob Stutzman. “Money doesn’t solve everything, and they’re on defense in a lot of places.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California GOP Congressional Candidates Lean on Fundraising Edge in Tight Races appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The legislation became law over the weekend despite President Donald Trump declining to sign it. Trump withheld his signature not because he opposed the bill, but as a protest over the Senate’s failure to advance a separate, unrelated voter ID measure he had championed. Because he did not formally veto the housing package, it took effect automatically, without the fanfare that typically accompanies a presidential signing ceremony.

The timing is notable for congressional Republicans, who might otherwise have used the bill as a showcase achievement heading into a midterm election cycle in which affordability concerns are weighing heavily on voters. Instead, the law’s arrival came and went with little public celebration.

Housing advocates are calling the measure a rare and consequential moment for federal policy.

“I think the last time Congress passed anything of this magnitude, many of you were not even alive,” said Stephen Russell, president of the San Diego Housing Federation. “It is almost a once-in-a-lifetime event.”

The scale of the problem the law aims to address is stark. Most housing analysts estimate the country needs millions of additional units to bring costs down to a reasonable level, and California’s urban centers — including fast-growing pockets of the Inland Empire — carry an outsized share of that need. Nationally, the median home price hit a record $440,600 in June, according to the National Association of Realtors. In California, that figure would barely buy a starter home; the statewide median reached its own record of $930,260 just a month earlier.

The new law bundles together a range of tools rather than a single sweeping mandate. Among the provisions likely to matter most for California communities:

A system of federal grants that rewards cities for approving and building more housing, while withholding funding from those that lag behind — a carrot-and-stick approach aimed at breaking through local resistance to new development.

Regulatory changes designed to lower costs for manufactured and factory-built homes, an option increasingly seen as a faster, cheaper alternative to traditional construction, particularly for lower-income buyers.

A new program intended to speed up long-term recovery efforts following natural disasters such as wildfires — a provision with clear relevance for fire-prone regions across California, including areas of the Inland Empire that have faced their own blazes in recent years.

Whether the law delivers the kind of large-scale relief its backers are promising remains to be seen. But for a state where the gap between wages and housing costs continues to widen, even incremental federal action is being welcomed by local housing officials who have long argued that state and local efforts alone cannot solve the crisis.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s New Housing Law: What It Means for Residents appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The bill is set to become law automatically just after midnight Saturday, thanks to a quirk of the Constitution rather than a presidential signature. President Trump had pledged not to sign the housing measure until Congress first passed a national voter identification proposal — legislation that has stalled in the Senate. With that impasse continuing and Trump reiterating his refusal to sign as recently as last week, the housing bill will take effect without his approval, simply by running out the ten-day clock the Constitution allows for presidential action.

Despite the anticlimactic path to passage, housing advocates say the substance of the bill is anything but minor. Rather than one bold stroke, the legislation bundles together 56 separate provisions — regulatory tweaks, pilot programs, low-cost loans and grants — aimed at chipping away at the nation’s housing affordability crisis from multiple angles. No single piece is likely to transform the market on its own. Supporters are betting that, together, they might.

“We don’t often get together to celebrate federal housing legislation,” Stephen Russell, president of the Housing Federation of San Diego, said at a press conference last week. “I think the last time Congress passed something of this magnitude, a lot of you weren’t even born yet… this is close to a once-in-a-lifetime event.”

The bill’s momentum reflects a growing bloc of lawmakers aligned with the “Yes In My Backyard” movement, many of them from California, a state that knows a thing or two about sky-high housing costs. But the push to link affordability to housing supply has become a bipartisan cause nationally. Tellingly, the legislation was born out of a partnership between Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, one of the Senate’s most progressive members.

Though none of the bill’s provisions target California specifically, several stand out for the mark they could leave on the state.

BUILD NOW, OR ELSE

For expensive cities that have chronically underbuilt — a description that fits much of urban California — the bill pairs incentives with real consequences.

The legislation reworks the Community Development Block Grant program, one of the federal government’s primary funding streams for affordable housing and local economic development. Cities with high housing costs, measured through price and vacancy data, that have a history of sluggish construction and continue to build below-average levels of housing will see their block grant funding cut by 10 percent. Those savings will be redirected to cities building at a faster clip.

That could carry “real implications for cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, which have traditionally lagged” in expanding housing supply, said David Garcia, deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

According to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development data, the city of Los Angeles received $48.4 million in its most recent block grant allocation in 2024. San Francisco received $18.9 million. Those figures alone wouldn’t make or break either city’s budget.

“I think this will be a small nudge,” said Laura Foote, executive director of YIMBY Action, in an email. “Which, applied nationally, could have a big impact! Small nudges add up.”

Beyond the dollar amounts, the precedent may matter more. Even in California, where the state has aggressively pushed cities to plan for more housing and penalized those that don’t, lawmakers have never before punished municipalities for failing to actually build — an outcome not always within a city’s control.

Garcia called the idea “inconceivable in past Congresses.” Even so, the provision hasn’t drawn much public pushback from local government groups. In an online summary, National League of Cities lobbyist Michael Wallace praised the broader housing bill as an example of the federal government “choosing collaboration with local governments over the imposition of laws,” highlighting other provisions that give cities more flexibility in spending block grant funds and new incentive programs to boost supply.

LOSING THE CHASSIS

Manufactured homes are often casually called “mobile homes,” but in practice, they rarely move. Built on assembly lines and trucked to their final destination, these naturally affordable homes — the type policymakers across California and the country say the market desperately needs more of — are typically installed on permanent foundations. Fewer than 10 percent are ever relocated again.

Yet the federal building code governing manufactured homes still requires a costly holdover from their mobile origins: a permanent steel chassis.

That chassis — a massive steel undercarriage complete with removable axles and wheels — is technically there to make transport easier. In practice, it functions as a bulky, 10-to-12-inch-thick floor that can’t be removed once the home is delivered. It adds thousands of dollars to the cost of each unit and makes it far more difficult to stack manufactured homes into two-story buildings or multifamily apartment complexes, according to Jess Maxcy, president of the California Manufactured Housing Institute.

The new federal law eliminates the permanent chassis requirement — a change manufacturers and housing policy experts have pushed for since the mid-1980s.

“That relatively small change will expand access to one of the most affordable paths to homeownership,” said Rep. Scott Peters, D-San Diego, at last week’s press conference.

Maxcy said she doesn’t expect the rule change to spark an overnight boom in manufactured housing. But especially in California, where high land costs make it more likely that new single-family homes will be built stacked on small lots, the change “gives us more opportunities and helps us bring the price down.”

DISASTER RECOVERY, MADE PERMANENT

In the months after a natural disaster, long after emergency federal funds run dry, Congress has historically stepped in with long-term rebuilding grants through the Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery program. Over the past three decades, the program has funneled more than $100 billion into long-term recovery work — building housing, repairing infrastructure, and helping with rental and relocation assistance. The money is typically reserved for low-income residents and communities “that won’t be able to recover without these funds,” said Marion McFadden, who ran the program under the Biden administration and now works at IEM, a disaster preparedness and recovery consulting firm.

Unfortunately for California, the program has never had a permanent, guaranteed existence. Since the mid-1990s, it’s been authorized and funded on an ad hoc basis, tucked into individual spending bills. That makes it difficult for communities trying to plan long-term recovery, and it means the rules governing the money — who gets it, when, under what conditions and for what purposes — get rewritten with every new administration, often slowing the process considerably. According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Los Angeles has yet to receive any disaster recovery block grant funding following the 2025 wildfires. Congress has not yet appropriated any.

The new housing bill would permanently authorize the program in law for at least three years.

“This allows HUD to have funds ready before a disaster and make a decision within 15 days on whether it will provide funding,” McFadden said.

What the bill doesn’t do: provide additional funding. Disaster-prone communities will still have to wait for Congress to address that separately.

CLEARING A BOTTLENECK

For the past two decades, public housing authorities in Los Angeles and the Bay Area have relied on the federal Rental Assistance Demonstration program to repair and modernize their aging public housing stock. The program works by diversifying funding sources, giving local agencies more flexibility to secure loans and attract private investment.

Until just after midnight on July 11, the federal government was only authorized to approve 455,000 of these conversions nationwide. The new bill raises that cap by another 100,000 units.

“This has been a bottleneck in California for years, and that bottleneck has just been removed,” Russell said.

Not every affordable housing advocate is celebrating. The National Low Income Housing Coalition has consistently opposed expanding the program, arguing that shifting funding sources could weaken existing tenant protections. It’s unclear how much truth there is to that concern — a study last year found no evidence that conversions under the program lead to increased evictions.

KEEPING WALL STREET OUT OF THE SUBURBS

If there’s one thing most people have heard about this bill, it’s that it bars “large institutional investors” from buying up more single-family homes.

The final version includes some significant caveats. The bill defines “large” as any corporate entity controlling more than 350 single-family homes. It’s not retroactive, so investors who already hold large portfolios don’t have to sell them off. There are exemptions for new construction, renovations and senior housing. In California specifically, where corporations and other large investors don’t play an outsized role in the housing market, the impact is likely to be modest.

The provision “takes an issue that resonates deeply with people across the country and applies a fairly modest fix,” said Chad Maisel, a fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress and a former housing policy adviser to President Biden.

Still, the measure enjoys broad bipartisan support. Earlier this year, Trump called for even tougher restrictions on so-called corporate landlords. Gov. Gavin Newsom made a similar call that same week.

The anti-investor language in the final bill was softened considerably from an earlier version that threatened to undercut “build-to-rent” developments — well-financed subdivisions of single-family homes built specifically for renters. That earlier draft sparked backlash from developers and YIMBY advocates who otherwise strongly supported the bill, arguing that such communities are among the fastest-growing sources of new housing in the country and offer renters rare access to suburban-style, single-family living.

After that provision was stripped from the federal bill, state Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Fremont, now a congressional candidate, introduced state legislation reviving the idea. Her bill, SB 880, would have barred the bulk sale of multiple single-family homes, striking directly at the build-to-rent business model. That measure was rejected by the Assembly Judiciary Committee in late June.

Original source: CalMatters

The post What California’s “Once-in-a-Lifetime” Federal Housing Bill Would Mean for the State appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The bill didn’t arrive with the fanfare typically reserved for major legislation. It became law just after midnight without a signing ceremony, after President Trump declined to formally sign or veto it. The White House had actually scrapped a planned bill-signing last month amid a dispute over an unrelated voter ID measure stalled in the Senate. But under constitutional rules, a bill that sits unsigned for 10 days automatically becomes law — and that’s exactly what happened.

Despite the anticlimactic rollout, supporters describe the measure as historic: a rare bipartisan effort, born from a partnership between Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, aimed at chipping away at the nation’s housing shortage through dozens of smaller policy changes rather than one sweeping fix.

“We don’t often gather to celebrate federal housing legislation,” said Stephen Russell, president of the San Diego Housing Federation, at a press conference last week. “The last time Congress passed anything of this magnitude, many of you weren’t even alive. It’s almost a once-in-a-lifetime event.”

The law contains 56 separate provisions — regulatory adjustments, pilot programs, new loan products and grant incentives. None of them, on their own, is expected to solve California’s housing affordability crisis. But taken together, backers argue they could meaningfully shift the trajectory for cities that have struggled for years to build enough homes.

A carrot-and-stick approach for slow-growth cities

One of the more consequential changes targets the Community Development Block Grant program, a major federal funding stream for affordable housing and local development projects. Under the new law, expensive cities that consistently underbuild housing — based on measures like median home prices and vacancy rates — could see their grant funding cut by 10 percent. Those dollars would then be redirected to nearby cities that are building housing at a faster pace.

Housing policy experts say the change could have real consequences for cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, both of which have long lagged behind housing production goals. Los Angeles received roughly $48.4 million through the block grant program in 2024; San Francisco received about $18.9 million.

“I think this will be a small nudge,” said Laura Foote, executive director of YIMBY Action. “Which, taken across the country, could still have a good impact. Little nudges add up.”

More significant than the dollar amounts, experts say, is the precedent being set. Even California, which has aggressively pushed cities to plan for new housing, has never directly penalized municipalities for failing to actually build it — an outcome that isn’t always within a city’s control. David Garcia, deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation, called the idea “inconceivable in previous congresses.”

Still, local government advocates haven’t pushed back hard against the change. The National League of Cities praised the broader law, noting it also includes new flexibility for how block grant dollars can be spent and new support for local planning efforts.

Easing rules for manufactured housing

The law also eliminates a long-standing federal building requirement that manufactured homes — often called mobile homes, even though most never move after being installed — be built on a permanent steel chassis.

Originally intended to make the homes easier to transport, the chassis in practice adds a bulky, expensive layer beneath the floor that serves little purpose once a home is placed on a permanent foundation. Removing the requirement, something industry advocates have sought since the 1980s, is expected to lower costs and make it easier to build multi-story manufactured homes or stack units into apartment-style buildings.

“That relatively minor change will expand access to one of the most affordable forms of home ownership available,” said Rep. Scott Peters, a San Diego Democrat.

Jess Maxcy, president of the California Manufactured Housing Institute, said the shift won’t spark an immediate building boom, but in a state where land costs push builders toward denser development, it “provides more opportunities and helps us reduce the price.”

More certainty for disaster recovery funding

For communities recovering from wildfires and other disasters, the law formally establishes — for at least three years — the Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery program, which has funneled more than $100 billion nationally into long-term rebuilding efforts like housing construction and infrastructure repair.

Until now, the program operated on an ad hoc basis, requiring separate congressional funding after each disaster — a process that has left communities like Los Angeles, still recovering from the 2025 firestorms, without any allocated funds so far. The new law won’t immediately send fresh dollars to fire-affected areas, but it does create a framework allowing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to have funding ready in advance and make decisions within 15 days of a disaster.

“It creates the ability for HUD to have money on hand before a disaster and then make a decision within 15 days about whether they’re going to provide funding,” said Marion McFadden, a former HUD official who ran the program under President Biden.

Removing a cap on public housing conversions

The law also lifts a longstanding cap on the Rental Assistance Demonstration program, which allows public housing authorities — including those in Los Angeles and the Bay Area — to tap private financing to renovate aging public housing stock. The previous 455,000-unit cap will rise by another 100,000 units.

“This has been a bottleneck in California for years, and that bottleneck just got removed,” Russell said.

Not everyone is celebrating the expansion. The National Low Income Housing Coalition has raised concerns that shifting funding sources could weaken tenant protections, though a recent study found no clear evidence that such conversions lead to increased evictions.

A modest curb on corporate homebuying

Perhaps the most talked-about provision bars “large institutional investors” — defined as entities controlling more than 350 single-family homes — from purchasing additional houses. The rule doesn’t apply retroactively, exempts new construction, renovations and senior housing, and is unlikely to have much impact in California, where large investors play a relatively small role in the housing market compared with other states.

Chad Maisel, a fellow at the Center for American Progress and former housing adviser to President Biden, described the provision as “a pretty modest intervention” to a politically popular issue. Still, it drew support from across the spectrum — Trump called for even tougher restrictions on corporate landlords earlier this year, and Gov. Gavin Newsom voiced similar concerns days later.

An earlier, tougher version of the provision had threatened to disrupt “build-to-rent” developments — planned communities of single-family rental homes — prompting pushback from developers and pro-housing advocates who argued such projects help address a shortage of family-sized rental housing. That language was ultimately removed from the federal bill.

In California, state Sen. Aisha Wahab of Fremont, now a congressional candidate, introduced a related bill, SB 880, that would have banned bulk sales of single-family homes to investors — striking directly at the build-to-rent business model. That legislation died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee in late June.

Original source: CalMatters

The post What California’s “Once-in-a-Lifetime” Federal Housing Bill Would Mean for Residents appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Only two California congressional seats are viewed as truly competitive between the parties. In the San Diego area, Republican Jim Desmond, a county supervisor, will face Democratic City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert. In the southern San Joaquin Valley, Republican Rep. David Valadao, who has repeatedly survived difficult elections, will defend his seat against progressive Democrat Randy Villegas.

Some of the most dramatic fall matchups, however, are unfolding within the same party.

In Sacramento, longtime Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui is facing her most serious challenge in two decades in Congress. Matsui, 81, will face Sacramento City Councilmember Mai Vang, a progressive candidate nearly half her age. Vang finished ahead of Matsui in the primary vote count, though Republican voters in the district could play a role in shifting the outcome in November.

A similar generational contest may be developing in the North Bay, where Democratic investor Eric Jones is still trying to secure a general election spot against longtime Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson. Jones has criticized Thompson as ineffective and out of touch, but he trails Republican Ray Riehle in a race that remains too close to call.

Proposition 50 also forced some candidates to make unusual political calculations. Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley, whose district was significantly redrawn, changed both district and party affiliation in an attempt to remain in Congress. Running as an independent in the Sacramento-area 6th District, Kiley advanced and will face physician and former Democratic state Sen. Richard Pan, who finished ahead of a Republican candidate in the primary.

Closer to the Inland Empire, voters in portions of Orange and Riverside counties are headed for an unusual general election between two Republican incumbents. Rep. Ken Calvert and Rep. Young Kim will face each other in the newly drawn 40th Congressional District after Proposition 50 reshaped district boundaries.

California’s vote count remains ongoing in some contests. Although voters finished casting ballots June 2, close races can take days or even weeks to resolve as counties process and count remaining ballots.

In other statewide developments, California college students enrolled in short-term job training programs may soon become eligible for expanded federal aid, but the state is not expected to have the system ready by the federal government’s July 1 target date.

The U.S. Department of Education is giving states until July 1 to launch a new financial aid program that would allow students in short-term training programs to receive federal Pell Grants. Until now, students pursuing training in fields such as automotive mechanics and information technology generally have not qualified for federal aid. Under the expansion, eligible students could receive as much as $3,000 for tuition and living costs.

California, however, is not yet prepared to administer the program. Daisy Gonzales, executive director of the California Student Aid Commission, told lawmakers in May that financial aid systems are “extremely complex.” The commission has said funds may not be available to students until weeks or months after the federal deadline. Gonzales also warned that outreach and planning will be needed so students understand how to apply, saying, “You can’t just introduce a new tool, and then say, ‘Students apply.’”

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s influence over California politics is also drawing renewed attention as he weighs a likely presidential campaign. Newsom has filled more major elected posts than any California governor in recent memory, including vacancies on county boards of supervisors, three seats on the California Supreme Court and three appointments to the U.S. Senate.

Newsom first appointed Alex Padilla to the U.S. Senate after Kamala Harris resigned her seat to become vice president in 2021. After Sen. Dianne Feinstein died in 2023, he appointed Laphonza Butler to fill the vacancy. When Butler chose not to seek a full term, Newsom appointed Adam Schiff to serve the brief period before Schiff’s elected term began.

The vacancies also allowed Newsom to appoint Rob Bonta as attorney general and Shirley Weber as secretary of state. Those appointments could carry political value if Newsom seeks the Democratic presidential nomination, particularly if he faces another California contender such as Harris.

Meanwhile, State Farm is under scrutiny from California regulators over its handling of Los Angeles County fire claims. After finding widespread problems, regulators are seeking penalties and a possible license suspension for the insurer. The review follows claims tied to major Southern California fires, including the Eaton Fire in Altadena.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Generational Divide Shapes Drama in Upcoming Congressional Races appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Across Southern California and the Inland Empire, voters are also weighing in on congressional primaries that could help shape control of the U.S. House of Representatives during the final two years of President Trump’s term.

In addition to the governor’s race, the statewide ballot includes contests for lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, controller, treasurer, superintendent of public instruction, insurance commissioner and seats on the Board of Equalization. Voters are also choosing candidates for the California Assembly and state Senate.

Recent polling in the race for governor has shown Democrats Xavier Becerra and Tom Steyer in a close contest with Republican Steve Hilton. Under California’s top-two primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party affiliation, will advance to the November general election.

Final outcomes in competitive races may not be known tonight. California elections officials will continue counting ballots in the days ahead, and ballots postmarked by Election Day can still be counted if they arrive by June 9. The secretary of state has until July 10 to certify the results.

As vote totals are updated, results will be reported for key statewide offices, U.S. House races, California Senate contests and Assembly races.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Live Updates: California Election Results appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Under California’s top-two primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes advance to the general election, regardless of party. That format is especially important this year as Democrats seek to regain control of Congress and as Republicans have benefited nationally from a series of redistricting-related court decisions.

Democrats are entering the primary with optimism in California after voters approved Proposition 50, which redrew congressional boundaries and sharply reduced the number of competitive districts statewide. If Democrats win the House, they would gain the power to block President Donald Trump’s legislative priorities, scrutinize cabinet officials and pursue investigations into his administration.

Despite the broader national stakes, only two California districts are considered truly competitive: one in the San Joaquin Valley and one in San Diego County. Several other closely watched contests involve Democrats challenging fellow Democrats, often with generational and ideological divides at the center of the campaigns.

The highest-profile race is in the 22nd Congressional District, anchored by Bakersfield and the San Joaquin Valley. Republican Rep. David Valadao, considered one of the most vulnerable GOP incumbents in the country, is seeking reelection. His lone defeat came in 2018 during Trump’s first term. As the only Republican in the race, Valadao is widely expected to secure a spot in the November runoff.

The more uncertain question is which Democrat will face him. Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains, a physician with extensive experience in hospitals and clinics that depend on Medi-Cal funding, is running as a pragmatic Democrat willing to break with her party. She is competing against Randy Villegas, a college professor and school board trustee who is campaigning as a progressive and has support from the Working Families Party, the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The contest reflects a broader Democratic debate over how to win back voters who drifted away in 2024. Bains has backing from national Democrats and several current members of Congress, while Villegas is appealing to voters with a more progressive, economically populist message.

In San Diego County’s 48th Congressional District, Democrats are competing for the chance to run against Republican Jim Desmond, a San Diego County supervisor who has been endorsed by retiring Rep. Darrell Issa.

Two Democrats have separated themselves from the field: San Diego City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert and Ammar Campa-Najjar, a former Labor Department aide in the Obama administration who previously lost two races to Issa. Brandon Riker, a Palm Springs businessman who shifted districts after Proposition 50, is also running.

The Democratic primary has grown increasingly sharp. Von Wilpert accused Campa-Najjar of being anti-LGBTQ after he questioned whether she could appeal to voters beyond gay-friendly Palm Springs. Campa-Najjar, in turn, accused von Wilpert of racism for raising questions about his name changes and residency.

Elsewhere in California, several races are testing the staying power of longtime Democratic incumbents as younger candidates argue the party needs new leadership.

In San Francisco’s 11th Congressional District, the race to succeed former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has developed into a competition for second place. State Sen. Scott Wiener leads by double digits in public polling and is expected to advance to November. San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan, who received Pelosi’s endorsement two weeks before election day, and billionaire tech entrepreneur Saikat Chakrabarti are battling for the other runoff spot.

In Sacramento’s 7th Congressional District, Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui is facing the most serious challenge of her 20-year congressional career. Her opponent, Sacramento City Councilmember Mai Vang, is a progressive candidate nearly half Matsui’s age and is campaigning on a message of generational change.

The reshaped 6th Congressional District in the Sacramento suburbs has also drawn attention. Democratic Rep. Ami Bera left that district to run in the newly configured 3rd District. Rep. Kevin Kiley, the incumbent in the 3rd, later left the Republican Party and entered the 6th District race as an independent.

A Democratic-sponsored poll showed Kiley leading the field, with former state Sen. Dr. Richard Pan ahead of the other Democratic candidates. Other Democrats running include Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho, Planned Parenthood public affairs executive Lauren Babb-Tomlinson and West Sacramento Mayor Martha Guerrero.

In Wine Country’s 4th Congressional District, Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson, 75, is seeking a 15th term while facing a challenge from 36-year-old Eric Jones, a former venture capitalist. Jones is focusing his campaign on affordability, including a proposed $10,000 middle-class tax credit and expanded access to zero-down mortgages.

Thompson is emphasizing his seniority, his work opposing the Trump administration and his record of securing federal funding for local projects. He serves as a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees tax policy. Two Republican candidates, John MacKenzie and Ray Rihele, have been heavily outspent and are not expected to advance.

In Los Angeles County’s 32nd Congressional District, Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman, 71, is seeking another term after nearly three decades representing some of the region’s affluent northwestern suburbs. His leading challenger, 42-year-old Jake Levine, argues Sherman has grown disconnected from the district.

Levine, a former climate adviser to Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, is running on a progressive platform that includes universal child care, a federal renters’ tax credit and tuition-free college.

Both Sherman and Levine are expected to move on to the November election.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California House Primaries Could Help Decide Control of Congress appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

    Trump-backed candidate Ed Gallrein defeated Massie on Tuesday by a 55% to 45% margin after one of the most expensive Republican primaries in Kentucky history. More than $32 million was reportedly spent between both sides in a race that exposed growing divisions within the GOP.

    Earlier this year, Trump sharply criticized Massie on Truth Social, calling him “the WORST Republican Congressman in the long and fabled history of the United States Congress.” The president had targeted Massie for repeatedly breaking with Republican leadership on several high-profile votes.

    Despite the bitter campaign, Massie remained popular among many libertarian-minded conservatives and supporters of the “America First” movement that helped fuel Trump’s rise in 2016 and again in 2024.

    During his concession speech, Massie defended his record and suggested the conflict centered around a handful of major disagreements rather than broader Republican priorities.

    “It’s only the 10% of the time they’re mad about,” Massie said. “When I won’t vote for a war, when I won’t vote for warrantless spying and when I won’t vote to bankrupt the country.”

    Those positions once aligned closely with Trump’s own campaign rhetoric, particularly his promises to reduce foreign intervention and rein in government spending. Critics now argue Massie stayed consistent while Trump’s priorities shifted after returning to office.

    One issue that reportedly intensified tensions between the two men involved the Epstein files. Trump had previously pledged to release additional documents connected to Jeffrey Epstein, but later backed away from doing so. Massie then supported legislation aimed at forcing the release of the files, a move that angered many within Trump’s circle.

    Farmer and conservative commentator Joel Salatin defended Massie in a recent blog post, comparing him to former Congressman Ron Paul and praising him for resisting pressure from political insiders.

    “Massie, like Congressman Ron Paul before him, could not be bought,” Salatin wrote. “And Washington, both Republicans and Democrats, cannot abide partners who refuse to be bought.”

    Polling data also highlighted a noticeable generational divide among Republican voters in Kentucky. A Big Data Poll conducted May 15 found younger Republicans overwhelmingly backed Massie, while older voters strongly favored Gallrein.

    According to the survey, Massie received support from 81.5% of Generation Z voters and 68.6% of Millennials. Support declined among older groups, with only 38% of Baby Boomers supporting Massie. Gallrein won the Boomer vote decisively.

    Some Republican strategists worry the split could create long-term problems for the party if younger conservatives continue drifting away from establishment-backed candidates.

    At the same time, recent national polling numbers suggest broader concerns for Republicans beyond Kentucky.

    A Fox News poll released May 20 found Trump’s overall approval rating sitting at 39%. The survey showed weaker numbers on key issues, including foreign policy, the economy and inflation.

    Another national survey conducted by VoteHub showed Democrats leading Republicans by 7.5 percentage points on the generic congressional ballot, a potential warning sign ahead of the midterm elections.

    Economic concerns remain a major issue for voters across the country. Rising fuel prices, inflation and higher consumer costs continue weighing heavily on households, and political analysts note that voters often blame the party currently in power when economic conditions worsen.

    The U.S. Labor Department reported this week that producer prices climbed 6% in April compared to a year earlier, fueling concerns that additional inflation could soon hit consumers more directly.

    Trump also faced criticism after dismissing concerns over rising gas prices during a May 19 interview, calling the increases “peanuts.” Democrats are expected to use the comment heavily in campaign advertising this fall as they attempt to paint Republicans as disconnected from everyday financial struggles.

    Although Massie represented a safely Republican district that is expected to remain in GOP hands, some conservatives believe the primary battle reflected deeper frustrations inside the Republican Party over loyalty, ideology and the direction of the movement after Trump’s return to the White House.

    For now, Republicans may have secured a victory in Kentucky. But whether the costly fight strengthens or weakens the party nationally remains an open question heading into November.

The post Trump-Backed Defeat of Thomas Massie Sparks Debate Inside GOP appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Democrats voiced concern that the United States is becoming further entrenched in another lengthy conflict in the Middle East. They promised to keep raising the issue through more war powers votes in the coming weeks.

The 213-214 vote came one day after a similar effort failed in the Senate. The U.S. and Israel struck Iran on Feb. 28, and a fragile ceasefire is now in its second week.

Democrats overwhelmingly supported the attempt to rein in Trump’s use of military force.

“We’re standing at the edge of a cliff and Congress must act before the president pushes off,” said New York Rep. Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. “Every day we delay, we inch closer to a conflict with no exit ramp.”

Republicans tried to cast the effort as hypocritical.

Florida Rep. Brian Mast, the committee chairman, said Congress never voted on a war powers resolution when the U.S. attacked Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen in 2024 while Democrat Joe Biden was president.

“When Joe Biden was responding to merchant marine vessels being attacked, it was OK. No war power needed. It went on for about a year,” Mast said. “President Trump responds — war power, war power, war power. … That’s the hypocrisy.”

Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must declare war or authorize use of force within 60 days — a deadline in the Iran war that will arrive at the end of April. The law provides for a potential 30-day extension, but lawmakers have made clear that they want the Republican administration to soon lay out a plan for the war’s end.

While the House vote failed, it gave Democrats an opportunity to highlight some of the most negative effects of the war: the billions of dollars spent, the death of at least 13 service members, the soaring gas prices and fissures with long-standing allies who do not support Trump’s actions.

“Gas prices at home are up to $7 in my home state, and families are hurting,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash. “Another 10,000 U.S. troops are being sent in to join 50,000 already stationed in the Middle East with absolutely no strategy, no plan and no exit.”

Republicans defended Trump as taking decisive action against an Iranian government that has long terrorized the Middle East and its own people.

“President Donald Trump has sent a message that those who threaten the United States and our partners will be ultimately held accountable,” said Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C.

In Thursday’s vote, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky was the only Republican to cross party lines and vote for removing U.S. forces from the war. Rep. Jared Golden of Maine was the only Democrat to vote against the measure.

The first House vote to curb Trump’s miliary action with Iran failed in early March, 212-219.

The post House rejects effort to withdraw US forces from the Iran war as Republicans stick with Trump appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The legislative blueprint outlines a half-dozen guiding principles for lawmakers, focusing on protecting children, preventing electricity costs from surging, respecting intellectual property rights, preventing censorship and educating Americans on using the technology.

House Republican leaders swiftly endorsed the framework and said they’re ready to work “across the aisle” to pass legislation, but doing so would be a heavy lift, requiring agreement with Democrats in the Senate as public divisions over AI run deep.

The announcement comes as state governments have forged ahead on their own regulations for AI while civil liberties and consumer rights groups lobby for more regulations on the powerful technology. The industry and the White House have pushed back, arguing that a patchwork of rules would hurt growth. Trump signed an executive order in December to block states from crafting their own regulations.

“This was in response to a growing patchwork of 50 different state regulatory regimes that threaten to stifle innovation and jeopardize America’s lead in the AI race,” said White House AI czar David Sacks in a social media post Friday.

Sacks said the next step is to work with Congress to turn the administration’s principles into federal legislation.

AI legislation could need bipartisan support to pass

While passing sweeping AI legislation will be difficult, especially in a midterm election year, the framework appeared designed to appeal to some AI-wary Republicans and Democrats with a focus on widespread and bipartisan concerns, such as the harms that AI chatbot companionship can pose to children and the electricity costs of AI infrastructure.

“It covers basically all the key sticking points I think that might stop an AI bill from moving through Congress,” said Neil Chilson, a Republican former chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission who now leads AI policy at the Abundance Institute. “It reads to me as an attempt to build a larger tent, even if it doesn’t give everybody everything that they want.”

But it has already been panned by some Democrats, including U.S. Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, who said in a statement it “fails to address key issues, including strong accountability for AI companies, under the guise of protecting children, communities, and creators. Americans need protection — but this means nothing if we allow the AI industry to be the Wild West.”

Whether AI legislation can pass both chambers of Congress could also rely heavily on the support of Republicans like U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who has introduced her own AI bill, and last year was instrumental in thwarting Trump’s earlier attempt to deter state governments from regulating AI. Blackburn on Friday called Trump’s framework a roadmap and welcomed the administration to the “important discussion” of getting a bill passed.

States already regulating AI don’t want to be preempted

Several states — including California, Colorado, Texas and Utah — have already passed laws that set some rules for AI across the private sector.

With bipartisan support in the Texas legislature, a new AI law that took effect this year in the Republican-led state requires government agencies and health care providers to disclose when they are using AI to interact with consumers or answer questions. The law also prohibits the development of AI that encourages a person to commit suicide, harm themselves, harm another person or engage in criminal activity.

A federal law following Trump’s framework “could knock out parts of Texas’s AI code while leaving some parts standing,” said Saurabh Vishnubhakat, a professor at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law. “The fact that it’s a Republican governor I don’t think is going to save Texas’ law from preemption.”

Also vulnerable is Colorado’s law, which is aimed at preventing AI from discriminating against people when making consequential decisions about things like hiring and medical care. It was passed in 2024 but isn’t set to take effect until later this year. Lawmakers hope to rework the regulations before then.

Colorado State Rep. Jennifer Bacon, a Democrat, said voters don’t want to stifle innovation or fall behind China “but our constituents are interested in not becoming China.”

California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed some AI bills while signing into law others. His office criticized Trump’s framework Friday.

“Yet again, Donald Trump is trying to gut laws in California that keep our residents safe and protect consumers — a core state responsibility,” Newsom’s spokesperson Marissa Saldivar said in a statement.

The Trump administration says it doesn’t think Congress should preempt all state regulatory powers over AI, including enforcement of general laws against AI developers, “to protect children, prevent fraud, and protect consumers.” It also says Congress shouldn’t interfere with local authorities in deciding where to place data centers and other AI infrastructure, or how states procure their own AI tools for law enforcement or education.

However, it says states “should not be permitted to regulate AI development,” shouldn’t penalize AI developers for a third party’s unlawful conduct using their product, and “should not unduly burden Americans’ use of AI for activity that would be lawful if performed without AI.”

Trump’s AI proposal appeals to concerns about data centers, copyright

As backlash against data centers has increased along with rising power prices, the White House had previously stepped up pressure on AI companies and the power sector to do more to address the issue — including having AI companies sign voluntary pledges earlier this month to build their own power generation plants.

Some AI safety advocates are pushing for Blackburn and other influential Republicans to insist on more protections against AI’s most catastrophic risks to national security or the economy, such as out-of-control AI agents or the widespread replacement of human workers.

“We have companies that explicitly are hoping to replace human labor,” said Brendan Steinhauser, a former Republican strategist who now leads The Alliance for Secure AI and believes Trump’s framework doesn’t do enough to address risks. “Tinkering at the edges with upskilling and job training is just not going to make an impact on that. I just don’t think we as a country are taking this seriously enough.”

The framework aims for a more balanced approach to another controversial topic: AI and copyright.

It recommends against wading into the legal fights between artists and creators and the technology companies that have ingested huge amounts of copyrighted works to build AI systems that can generate new text, images and sound.

The Trump administration “believes that training of AI models on copyrighted material does not violate copyright laws,” according to the document, but acknowledges “arguments to the contrary exist and therefore supports allowing the Courts to resolve this issue.”

That language was welcomed by trade group AI Progress — a coalition that includes Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Midjourney and OpenAI.

Tech companies have been fighting dozens of copyright infringement lawsuits from writers and publishers, visual artists, music record labels and others. Judges have largely sided with AI developers in allowing for the “fair use” of copyrighted works to create something new, but some have questioned how the materials were obtained. A federal judge in September approved a $1.5 billion settlement between Anthropic and authors who allege nearly half a million books had been illegally pirated to train its chatbot.

The post White House urges Congress to take a light touch on AI regulations in new legislative blueprint appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.