The 13 measures, signed Saturday, take direct aim at scenarios that have alarmed state officials in recent months — from federal agents showing up at polling places to local law enforcement seizing ballots before an election is certified.

“Trump won’t stop until he can exert dictatorial control over your free vote and disenfranchise millions of people this November,” Newsom said in a statement announcing the signings. “California will stop him at every opportunity.”

The Trump administration has long maintained that its election policies are meant to root out fraud and keep noncitizens from casting ballots, even though voter fraud remains statistically rare. Opponents, however, say the practical effect of many of these federal actions is to make voting harder for people who are legally entitled to cast a ballot.

One of the new state laws makes it a felony for anyone — including law enforcement — to seize ballots, voting equipment or election records before results are certified. That legislation traces directly back to an incident in Riverside County this past March, when Sheriff Chad Bianco confiscated more than 600,000 ballots as part of what he called a “fact-finding mission.” Two local Democratic officials and the California attorney general challenged the seizure in court, and the case is now before the state Supreme Court.

Another new law criminalizes interference with the delivery or return of mail ballots, a response that comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court decision rejecting the Trump administration’s attempt to restrict mail voting through new U.S. Postal Service rules.

Newsom also signed legislation prohibiting police from making arrests within 200 feet of a polling place on Election Day, with exceptions for crimes against people or property or offenses tied to obstructing someone’s right to vote. The bill reflects growing concern among Democratic lawmakers that federal agents could be sent to polling sites to intimidate voters.

Not everyone welcomed the changes. Sheriff Bianco argued that one of the new laws could put officers at risk of felony charges even when they’re simply carrying out a judicial warrant. The First Amendment Coalition objected to a separate measure banning deceptive, digitally altered political ads, citing free speech concerns. The California State Sheriffs’ Association also opposed one of the bills, saying it hands too much authority to the state attorney general.

In other Sacramento news, Newsom issued an executive order directing state agencies to draft artificial intelligence safety guidelines by Nov. 16. Some of what’s being proposed — including requiring a “kill switch” that developers could use to shut down AI systems — mirrors provisions from a bill Newsom vetoed two years ago. The shift comes amid rising public anxiety about AI’s potential dangers. Candidates running for governor have also signaled they support tighter AI oversight, though few have offered specifics on what that would look like.

Elsewhere in California policy news, digital privacy advocates have renewed scrutiny of data brokers, the companies that quietly gather and sell enormous amounts of personal information — from income and address to speculative details like whether someone might need a mammogram. A joint investigation by CalMatters and Consumer Reports identified more than 100 companies purchasing Californians’ data, including major retailers and financial firms.

On the infrastructure front, open internet advocates are pressing Newsom to turn down a $1.4 billion federal broadband grant meant to expand internet access to more than 270,000 residents in underserved communities. The catch: the Trump administration is requiring California to stop enforcing its net neutrality protections in exchange for the funding, a trade-off state regulators are still weighing.

Meanwhile, a fire last week at the Moss Landing battery storage facility in Monterey County has reignited safety concerns about the type of large-scale battery installations California is counting on to meet its clean energy targets. The same facility experienced one of the largest battery storage fires on record in January 2025, and investigators still haven’t determined the cause — a delay that has frustrated local officials.

In another decision this week, Newsom vetoed a bill that would have allowed individual state departments to craft their own telework policies. The veto keeps his current four-day in-office requirement in place, even as the state’s largest public employee union — which backed the bill — is polling members on a possible strike.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Signs New Voting Protections Amid Concerns Over Trump Interference appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Thursday that California has joined 24 other Democratic-led states in a lawsuit challenging fresh conditions placed on U.S. Department of Homeland Security grants — funding that helps states prepare for and respond to disasters such as wildfires and earthquakes.

The suit, filed in federal court in Rhode Island, targets a set of new requirements tied largely to elections. Among them: a mandate that states use a federal system to verify voters’ citizenship, a requirement to rely on hand-marked paper ballots, and a directive to conduct post-election audits. The rules would also require states to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts and would give federal agencies broad discretion to cut off funding if states fall out of line.

At stake is money from programs like the Homeland Security Grant Program, created by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks to help states guard against terrorism and other major threats, including cyberattacks. California receives roughly $150 million a year through that program alone.

Bonta argued that the administration is treating public safety funding as leverage rather than a guaranteed resource already approved by Congress.

“Instead of ensuring these critical resources reach the communities that need them, Trump is attempting to use this funding as leverage to force states to adopt his preferred political agenda,” Bonta said during a press conference.

According to the lawsuit, states that don’t comply with the new election-related conditions risk losing at least 20% of their Homeland Security Grant Program funding — and potentially all of it.

The push comes as the Trump administration has intensified calls for stricter election procedures, including voter ID requirements, ahead of the November midterms, citing concerns about voter fraud. Democratic officials, however, argue these measures are less about security and more about limiting turnout among certain voter groups.

FEMA pushed back on the lawsuit in a statement, describing it as “partisan pushback” from Democratic officials who oppose what the agency called “common-sense measures designed to protect election security and safeguard the integrity of American democracy.” The agency added that “election security is national security” and that the new requirements are meant to “preserve election integrity.”

This isn’t the first time California and its allies have fought the administration over these grants. Twice last year, the administration attempted to withhold the same funding as part of its push to compel states to assist with immigration enforcement. Both times, courts sided with California and the coalition of states challenging the move.

In one of those rulings, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy — a Trump appointee — wrote that conditioning essential funding on “what appear to be Defendants’ political whims is unconscionable and, at least here, unlawful.”

The latest filing marks the 79th lawsuit California has brought against the Trump administration since it returned to office.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Sues Trump Administration Over Disaster Aid Rules Tied to Election Policies appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The shift is notable in a state dominated by Democratic voters, where support for government services has often translated into willingness to pay higher taxes. California already ranks among the nation’s highest-tax states, with steep rates on retail sales, personal income and corporate income. While property tax rates are comparatively restrained, the state’s high home values often leave property owners with substantial annual bills.

Additional taxes on fuel, utilities, tobacco, alcohol, health care, gambling, firearms and ammunition add to the overall burden. State and local governments, along with school districts, collect roughly $400 billion in taxes each year, according to the Tax Foundation. That amounts to more than $10,000 per resident, the fifth-highest per-person tax burden in the country.

The state budget now being negotiated includes several smaller tax proposals, including a new tax on managed health care services and another involving software. At the same time, local governments across California are asking voters to approve new sales taxes, parcel taxes and bond measures. The November ballot also could include several statewide tax-related proposals, some seeking to raise taxes and others designed to limit future increases.

Together, those measures will test how much more California voters are willing to pay. Recent polling and election results suggest that appetite may be shrinking.

In a May survey by the Public Policy Institute of California, 55% of voters said they preferred lower taxes and a state government that provides fewer services as a way to address ongoing state budget deficits. Even among Democrats, only 10% supported solving the state’s budget problems primarily through higher taxes, according to PPIC researcher Dean Bonner.

The results of California’s recent primary election appeared to reflect that mood. Voters considered 92 local measures that would either raise taxes directly or authorize bonds that would trigger higher property taxes to pay off the debt. The California Taxpayers Association found that 57.5% of those measures passed, a sharp drop from approval rates of about 70% in other recent elections.

The resistance was visible even in San Francisco, one of the state’s most progressive cities. Voters there rejected Proposition D, which would have increased taxes on large companies whose executives are paid at least 100 times more than their rank-and-file workers. They also turned down Proposition C, which would have raised the city’s gross receipts tax on businesses.

Other tax proposals failed in Democratic-leaning areas as well. San Diego voters rejected a new tax on vacant residential properties, and Contra Costa County voters turned down a sales tax increase. In Los Angeles County, voters approved a sales tax hike for health care, but only by a very narrow margin.

The growing hesitation may be tied to broader anxiety over California’s high cost of living, a concern felt heavily across Southern California and the Inland Empire, where household budgets have been strained by housing, transportation, insurance, utilities and grocery costs.

The same PPIC survey found that 44% of Californians considered the cost of living and the economy the state’s most important issue. Housing costs and availability ranked second at 14%. The poll also found that three in four Californians expect difficult economic times ahead, with pessimism widespread across party, regional and demographic lines.

Voters worried about their own finances are often less inclined to support measures that could raise household costs further. With more tax proposals expected in November, California will soon get another measure of just how far that reluctance may go.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Voters Grow Wary of Ballot Measures Seeking New Taxes appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The slow tally drew national scrutiny after it took roughly a week for enough ballots to be counted to project the outcome of the governor’s race. Critics included President Donald Trump, election analyst Nate Silver and The New York Times editorial board, which argued that delayed results can undermine public confidence in government.

State leaders from both parties have said they would prefer faster results. But Democratic officials, who control state government, have shown little interest in major changes if those changes would limit access to ballots — particularly mail voting, now a central part of California elections.

Election officials say the delay is largely tied to the volume of mail ballots that arrive on Election Day or shortly before it. Under California law, those ballots must be verified and processed before they are counted, a procedure that takes more time than tabulating votes cast in person.

Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Santa Cruz Democrat who chairs the Assembly elections committee and previously served as a county registrar, said Californians should understand the tradeoff involved.

“If you want results election night, you’re going to have to go back to in-person voting, way earlier deadlines for returning by mail and you’re going to end up disenfranchising voters,” Pellerin told CalMatters.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber has also defended the current system, saying accuracy must come before speed. In April, Weber dismissed some criticism of California’s vote-counting process as a political attack and said the priority should remain ensuring that valid ballots are counted.

“For me, accuracy is far more important,” Weber told CalMatters.

The issue is especially relevant in large Southern California counties, where election offices handle high numbers of mail ballots and must verify signatures, sort envelopes and process ballots under strict security rules. The work is labor-intensive and can extend for days or weeks after an election, depending on turnout and the number of ballots returned late in the voting period.

Mail ballots also cost more to process than in-person votes, requiring additional staff, equipment and time. The Public Policy Institute of California has reported that counties do not receive enough funding to easily expand staffing for faster counting. Unlike some states, California does not provide ongoing state funding to counties specifically for election administration.

Eric McGhee, a senior fellow at the institute, said county registrars are often trying to balance voter access, accuracy and limited budgets.

“They’re kind of managing the best they can with the budget that they have,” McGhee told CalMatters. “But it’s a lot to handle.”

Republicans have repeatedly criticized California’s slow reporting, arguing that a state with the size and resources of California should be able to produce results more quickly. Democrats counter that many of the proposals likely to speed up the count — such as shortening ballot return windows or requiring more voters to cast ballots in person — could reduce participation, especially among voters who rely on mail ballots because of work schedules, disability, transportation barriers or other challenges.

For now, the state appears unlikely to make sweeping changes. The debate is expected to continue as California heads toward future elections, with officials facing pressure to reassure voters that slow results do not mean unreliable results.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Democrats Seek Faster Election Results but Warn Changes Could Hurt Voters appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The latest debate followed California’s primary election, when it took about a week for enough votes to be counted to project the outcome of the high-profile governor’s race. The slow release of results attracted national attention, renewed accusations from election skeptics and prompted calls for reforms to make California’s vote count faster.

Election analyst Nate Silver called California an extreme outlier in how slowly it counts ballots compared with other states and industrialized democracies. Some online responses to the delays falsely suggested the extended count was evidence of manipulation. The New York Times editorial board also criticized California’s election system, arguing that delayed results can undermine public confidence and create openings for misinformation. Gov. Gavin Newsom has similarly urged counties to report results more quickly, warning that delays can weaken trust in the process.

But many California Democrats, including those who oversee election policy in Sacramento, say faster results cannot come at the expense of voters who rely on mail ballots or late voting options.

Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Democrat who chairs the Assembly elections committee and previously served as Santa Cruz County registrar, said same-night results would require major restrictions, such as a return to mostly in-person voting or earlier deadlines for mailed ballots.

“If you want results election night, you’re going to have to go back to in-person voting, way earlier deadlines for returning by mail, and you’re going to end up disenfranchising voters,” Pellerin said.

Pellerin said that despite public frustration, county elections offices are doing their jobs and continuing to process ballots carefully.

“It’s actually going really well, and elections officials are working around the clock, and we’re getting results,” she said.

Other Democratic lawmakers who have worked on election legislation, including Assemblymember Marc Berman of Palo Alto and Sen. Tom Umberg of Santa Ana, have also said they do not support restrictions on voting access as a way to accelerate results. Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat who chairs the Senate elections committee and is running for Congress, said candidates may want quicker answers, but that cannot be the top priority.

“As a candidate, believe me, I would love for the counting to happen faster,” Wiener said. “I don’t think the right answer is disenfranchising people.”

Secretary of State Shirley Weber has also said accuracy should take precedence over speed. Weber, who is expected to win another term this fall, has previously dismissed some concerns about the slow count as echoing rhetoric used by President Donald Trump and his allies.

“I know the value of being fast for some folks,” Weber told CalMatters in April. “For me, accuracy is far more important.”

Some critics have focused on California’s rule allowing mail ballots to be counted if they arrive up to seven days after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked on time. That policy could face broader legal uncertainty as the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to invalidate a similar law in Mississippi.

But election officials and researchers say much of California’s delay comes from the large number of mail ballots that arrive on Election Day or shortly before it — not only from ballots that arrive days later.

California adopted universal vote-by-mail during the pandemic, sending every registered voter a ballot. The system has become highly popular. In last year’s statewide special election, nearly 90% of votes were cast by mail. A decade ago, by comparison, fewer than 60% of voters in general elections used mail ballots.

Mail ballots, however, take more work to process than ballots cast in person and scanned at vote centers. Counties must verify registration, ensure voters have not cast multiple ballots and check signatures. That process requires time, staff, equipment and space.

Eric McGhee, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, said counties have not received a consistent stream of state funding to match the demands of the vote-by-mail system.

“They’re kind of managing the best they can with the budget that they have,” McGhee said of county registrars. “But it’s a lot to handle.”

Unlike some states, California does not provide ongoing election administration funding to counties. Colorado, another universal vote-by-mail state, covers 45% of election costs when a statewide issue appears on the ballot. Hawaii shares expenses with counties for statewide and federal elections. Arizona reimburses counties $1.25 per active registered voter for presidential primaries.

In Yolo County, Registrar Jesse Salinas said more than half of the primary ballots that arrived this month were mail ballots returned on Election Day. He said only about 30% of ballots can be matched automatically by scanners, while the remaining 70% require human review.

“When people ask, ‘Well, why aren’t you working harder?’” Salinas said, he tells them that vote center staff work 19 straight days, including early voting periods that can last up to 15 days.

On Election Day, Salinas said, the Yolo County elections office is so packed with boxes of mail ballots that there is no room for additional machines or employees, even if funding were available. Handling more ballots quickly would require a larger facility.

“When you have that large volume hitting you at the 11th hour, there’s no way you can go through all of that in one night,” he said.

Orange County, by contrast, counted ballots more quickly this year after investing $4 million in new mail ballot processing equipment. Registrar Bob Page and his staff processed more than 807,000 ballots in a little over a week, with employees working from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and also working a Saturday shift.

Salinas said state funding would make a significant difference for counties. California paid for the costs of Newsom’s 2021 recall election and the 2025 statewide special election on redistricting, which allowed Yolo County to upgrade equipment.

But counties are facing other financial pressures, including the loss of federal and state Medi-Cal dollars and structural budget deficits that have forced departments to reduce spending. Even during an election year, Salinas said, his office was told to cut $1.1 million.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Democrats Resist Stricter Voting Deadlines as Calls Grow for Faster Election Results appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Since then-Gov. Jerry Brown stripped the 147-year-old agency of most of its duties in 2017, some former board members have called for abolishing it altogether. The board now oversees county assessors, handles certain property tax appeals and assesses property taxes on some properties that cross county lines. Eliminating it would require voter approval of a constitutional amendment.

Even with its limited role, powerful interest groups and wealthy donors poured more than $3.3 million into campaigns for three sitting state lawmakers seeking Board of Equalization seats this year: Assemblymember Mike Gipson, D-Gardena, state Sen. Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana, and state Sen. Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield. The money helped all three outpace most opponents and secure spots on the November ballot.

Political observers say the donations are less about the Board of Equalization’s current power and more about the influence those candidates still hold in Sacramento. The Legislature remains in session through August, and many donors have business before lawmakers now or have benefited from their support in the past.

“It is showing the world that you’re going to be supportive of people who have supported you,” said Mike Gatto, a former Democratic assemblymember from Los Angeles. “It’s a little message to other people that way.”

A review of campaign finance and Digital Democracy records shows much of the money came from unions, professional associations, businesses and individuals with interests before the Legislature, including some tied to bills the lawmakers have supported or authored.

Gipson, whose Assembly district includes Gardena and parts of the South Bay and Harbor Area, raised about $942,000 from major donors, according to the secretary of state. That far exceeded the fundraising of progressive Democrat Samuel Sukaton, who finished second after raising about $32,000. Democrat Yvonne Yiu, who contributed $760,000 of her own money to her campaign and supplemented it with some large donations, did not advance to November.

Labor organizations were Gipson’s largest source of support. Unions representing construction workers, carpenters, police, teachers, public employees and others contributed nearly $300,000 combined.

Gipson has been a traditional labor ally in the Legislature. Digital Democracy records show he voted with the Service Employees International Union and its affiliates 90% of the time. In 2024, an SEIU affiliate representing nurses publicly credited him for carrying legislation aimed at improving hospital worker safety. That union contributed the maximum $19,600 to his Board of Equalization campaign.

This year, Gipson is carrying Assembly Bill 1054, which would create a new end-of-career benefit for California Highway Patrol officers and state firefighters, allowing them to retire with a lump-sum payment in addition to their pensions. The proposal is sponsored by unions representing both groups and is described by supporters as a cost-neutral retention tool, though similar programs approved by cities elsewhere have been found to increase taxpayer costs.

Gipson received nearly $16,000 from the highway patrol union and $10,000 from the California Professional Firefighters PAC for his Board of Equalization campaign. Neither organization responded to requests for comment. Gipson’s campaign spokesperson, Adam Robak, did not respond to multiple requests for comment, and Gipson did not follow up on a request left with his office.

The Board of Equalization has stricter campaign finance rules than the Legislature, a holdover from the era when the board employed more than 4,000 people and collected roughly one-third of California’s tax revenue. Board members must recuse themselves from decisions involving donors whose interests are affected.

Cody Petterson, the board’s chief deputy and a candidate for a seat representing the San Diego area, said the board’s limited authority makes it unlikely that donors are trying to influence future board votes.

“It’s not like there’s interested parties that are like: ‘Oh, I’m gonna support this candidate who’s going to support my cause in the future,’” Petterson said. “That’s not a thing.”

In the Board of Equalization district covering Orange County and San Diego, Umberg transferred about $1.1 million from existing campaign accounts and raised another $598,000 between December 2025 and the June election. Attorneys, law firms and legal advocacy groups were among his notable donors, including groups that regularly appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Umberg chairs.

One of Umberg’s largest donors was John Manly, a prominent attorney representing survivors of childhood sexual abuse, who gave the maximum $19,600.

“No one has been a stronger voice for victims of childhood sexual abuse as he has been as chair of the Judiciary Committee,” Manly said. He also described Umberg as the kind of nonpartisan public official the state needs.

Umberg has backed legislation expanding the ability of survivors to sue over childhood sexual abuse. That includes a 2023 proposal ending the statute of limitations in such cases and another bill that would have expressly allowed lawsuits against county detention facilities. Manly’s firm lobbied for the latter measure. Local government agencies, already facing financial pressure from a 2019 law that revived many sexual abuse claims, opposed both bills.

Umberg will face Republican Denis Bilodeau in November. Bilodeau, president of a taxpayer association, received 45% of the vote and was endorsed by Reform California, the political organization led by San Diego Assemblymember Carl DeMaio. Bilodeau also put $100,000 of his own money into the race. Petterson finished a close third behind Umberg with 18% of the vote and said he spent about $30,000.

In an email, Umberg said campaign contributions have not influenced his decisions as a lawmaker.

“I have never made a legislative decision based on who contributed to my campaign, and I never will,” he said.

Sean McMorris, who manages transparency, ethics and accountability issues for California Common Cause, said the pattern of donations raises reasonable questions for voters.

“It’s a fair assumption for the public to say, well, hey, this is essentially a payoff,” McMorris said. “You voted, you gave me some goodies when you were in office. I’m returning the favor by now giving you the max campaign contribution I can for your campaign.”

The most competitive Board of Equalization race is expected in the inland California district, where Grove will face Fresno City Councilmember Nelson Esparza, a Democrat. Democrats hold about a 4 percentage-point voter registration advantage in the district.

Grove raised nearly $1.8 million from major donors, much of it from Central Valley businesses and business owners. Esparza raised $186,000.

A Republican senator from Bakersfield since 2018, Grove has been a consistent advocate for the Central Valley’s oil and agricultural industries. She supported a deal last year allowing Kern County to approve as many as 2,000 new oil well drilling permits annually.

Since opening her Board of Equalization campaign account in 2023, Grove has received more than $76,000 from oil and gas executives, companies and industry groups, including Signal Hill Petroleum, Valero and California Resources Corporation, according to Digital Democracy.

One donor was Cyrus Mojibi, president of San Joaquin Refining Company, who contributed a total of $17,300, including a December 2025 donation. In February, Grove introduced Senate Bill 1039, which could ease pollutant monitoring requirements for some refineries. Mojibi testified in support of the bill before the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, saying existing rules impose a major cost burden.

Grove also collected more than $120,000 from agricultural companies, executives and trade groups, including more than $10,000 from the American Pistachio Growers PAC and $5,000 from the Wonderful Company. She has pushed for increasing water supplies for Central Valley farmers and has authored legislation intended to streamline permitting for water infrastructure projects.

Duane Dicharia, a spokesperson for Grove, said the senator’s positions are not connected to campaign donations.

“Shannon has spent her career fighting higher taxes, government waste, and bureaucratic overreach, and donors are supporting her because they want that same approach on the Board,” he said in an email.

Not every Board of Equalization race has attracted the same level of spending. Sally Lieber, a former Assembly member who is running in the only district without a current legislator in the race, said she is relieved not to be in a contest dominated by big money. Lieber was elected to the board in 2022 after several years away from public office.

She said sitting legislators have a built-in fundraising advantage, though that advantage comes with constant pressure from party leaders to raise money for candidates and causes.

“I found the constant drive to raise money extremely off-putting and stressful,” Lieber said of her time in the Legislature. “You were just constantly needed to produce.”

Voters may soon weigh in on whether California should create a public financing system for campaigns. A measure expected on the November ballot stems from legislation co-authored last year by Umberg.

McMorris said Umberg worked with California Common Cause on the proposal and said some elected officials are frustrated with the current campaign finance system, even as they participate in it.

“There are politicians, even though they play this game because they feel that they have to, they don’t like it either,” McMorris said. “I think a lot of them would prefer an alternative system where they don’t have to cozy up to special interests in order to be viable.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Board of Equalization Wields Limited Power, but Donors Still Pour Millions Into Races 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.

More than a decade later, the system has not consistently delivered that result.

The open primary, used for most state and congressional contests, allows all candidates to appear on the same ballot regardless of party. The two candidates with the most votes advance to November, even if they belong to the same party. In theory, that setup was meant to encourage broader campaigning and give independent and moderate voters more influence.

In practice, most statewide races still end up looking much like traditional partisan elections: one Democrat and one Republican advancing to the general election.

Andrew Sinclair, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College, said California’s political balance helps explain why. Although Democrats dominate statewide politics — no Republican has won statewide office in California since 2006 — the state is not so overwhelmingly Democratic that two Democrats routinely capture both runoff spots.

There are exceptions. In the current insurance commissioner’s race, two Democrats have been holding the top two positions as ballots continue to be counted. But those cases remain relatively uncommon in statewide contests.

Political analysts say voters also tend to approach the top-two primary much like an old-style partisan primary. Democrats often rally around the Democrat they see as most viable, while Republicans do the same on their side. That leaves less room for candidates trying to draw distinctions based on ideology rather than party label.

That dynamic can hurt candidates who are trying to run as moderates or outsiders. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a moderate Democrat who entered the governor’s race with criticism of “extremism on both sides,” received about 4% of the vote. Progressive challengers without strong party or institutional support can face similar barriers.

Eric McGhee, a political researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California, said many voters are not closely tracking the ideological differences among candidates from the same party.

“The evidence we have of how voters view these contests is that they don’t have a clue who the moderate or the liberal is,” McGhee said. “It’s always a good bet that voters are way, way, way less tapped into the nuances of what’s going on than you are if you’re interested in politics.”

The system also has created opportunities for strategic spending by campaigns and outside groups. In the 2024 U.S. Senate primary, a super PAC supporting Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff spent heavily to elevate Republican Steve Garvey, a move that helped shape the field and damaged former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter’s chances of advancing.

Critics describe that kind of tactic as evidence that the top-two primary can be manipulated by well-funded campaigns seeking the most favorable November opponent.

Democratic political consultant Steve Maviglio, among those calling for an overhaul, has filed a proposed ballot measure that would repeal the system. Opponents of the current model have suggested returning to partisan primaries or moving toward ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to list candidates in order of preference.

The debate is likely to continue as California reviews the results of its latest primary. For voters across Southern California and the Inland Empire, the question is not just which candidates advance, but whether the primary system itself is producing the broader choices and more moderate politics its backers once promised.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Top-Two Primary Falls Short of Voters’ Expectations appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In the governor’s race, speculation had circulated about the possibility of two Republicans, or perhaps two Democrats, advancing to the general election. Instead, voters may be looking at a more conventional contest between Xavier Becerra, the Democratic front-runner, and Republican Steve Hilton, the former Fox News host.

That kind of matchup is common under California’s top-two system, even though the rules allow the two highest vote-getters to advance regardless of party. In a state where Democrats have not lost a statewide race to a Republican since 2006 and where Democratic registration is nearly double that of Republicans, the result of many November contests can be easy to anticipate.

The question for critics and election analysts is why California does not more often produce two-Democrat general elections in statewide races.

Andrew Sinclair, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College who has studied the top-two system, said California is strongly Democratic — but not quite Democratic enough to routinely block Republicans from November ballots.

Democratic candidates often receive around 60% of the statewide vote, Sinclair said. That is enough to make many general election results predictable, but not always enough to allow two Democrats to finish first and second in a crowded primary field.

Once the Democratic share reaches roughly 60% to 65%, same-party Democratic contests become more likely, Sinclair said. California, he said, often sits in a political middle ground where Democrats dominate statewide elections but Republicans still have enough voters to secure one of the two November spots.

California adopted the top-two primary after voters approved the system in 2010. Under the rules, all candidates appear on the same primary ballot, and the top two finishers advance to the general election. Party affiliation does not determine who moves forward.

Supporters argued the system would force candidates to reach beyond their partisan bases. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who championed the measure, said at the time that it would help reduce gridlock and partisan fighting in Sacramento. Both major political parties opposed the change.

The reform was also intended to make elections more competitive in districts dominated by one party. Instead of a lopsided Democrat-versus-Republican race, voters in a heavily Democratic district might choose between two Democrats with different policy views. The same could happen in Republican areas.

That has occurred in some races. But if the current vote counts hold, with many ballots still to be counted, several marquee statewide contests this fall are not expected to be especially competitive.

In races for lieutenant governor, attorney general, controller and treasurer, prominent and well-funded Democrats appear likely to face Republicans with steep odds in November. In congressional districts in West Los Angeles and Napa Valley, progressive challengers to moderate Democratic incumbents appear to have fallen short, leaving veteran Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman and Mike Thompson on track to face Republican opponents.

There are exceptions. In the race for insurance commissioner, Democrats Jane Kim and Ben Allen currently hold the top two spots. The 2018 lieutenant governor’s race also featured two Democrats in November, and same-party matchups have occurred in some U.S. Senate races. Still, the more common result remains a traditional partisan contest.

Part of the reason is turnout. June primaries generally draw fewer voters, and those who participate are more likely to be strong partisans. Eric McGhee, a political researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California, said voters often behave as though the top-two primary is still a party primary. Democrats tend to rally around the candidate they see as the strongest Democrat, while Republicans do the same.

There may be some independent or swing voters willing to cross party lines, but McGhee said they are not numerous enough in most June elections to reshape the results.

The governor’s race offered one example. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a moderate Democrat, campaigned on concerns about extremism in both parties, focused on economic issues and pledged to rein in state spending by his own party. Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio, a critic of the top-two system who voted for Mahan, said the mayor seemed like the sort of candidate the system was built to elevate.

Mahan received about 4% of the vote.

“At the end of the day,” Maviglio said, “voters are partisan.”

Same-party contests are more common at the legislative and congressional district level, where one party may dominate a particular region far more than it does statewide. In parts of the Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles and other liberal areas, two Democrats are on track to face each other in November.

Christian Grose, a political science professor at USC, said that over the past decade about one-third of legislative general elections in California have featured two candidates from the same party.

That can allow voters to weigh differences in policy, temperament or effectiveness rather than simply voting by party, Grose said. But it can also lead voters to make decisions based on factors less connected to governing, including race or gender.

In a 2020 paper, Grose found that candidates in top-two states have an incentive to move toward the political center, suggesting the system may have moderating effects even when it does not produce a same-party runoff.

The system may also make it easier for independents to compete. In a newly drawn swing district northeast of Sacramento, Rep. Kevin Kiley, described as a former Republican turned independent, appears to have finished first in his race. Running without major party backing can be more viable in a nonpartisan primary than in a traditional party primary.

Still, the top-two system has drawn criticism for creating opportunities for strategic maneuvering and unusual results.

Tom Charron, co-founder of the California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition, said the system can encourage candidates or outside groups to boost opponents they believe will be easier to defeat in November.

Gov. Gavin Newsom used that strategy in 2018, signaling support to Republican voters for John Cox, whom he viewed as a more favorable general election opponent than Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa. In 2024, a super PAC supporting Democratic U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff spent millions to elevate Republican Steve Garvey, hurting Democrat Katie Porter’s chances of advancing.

The system can also produce “shutouts,” where a party with substantial support fails to place any candidate in the general election because too many candidates split the vote.

That happened in 2012, when four Democrats ran in a San Bernardino congressional race and divided the left-leaning vote. Two Republicans advanced, even though Democrats had a modest registration advantage. A decade later, in a heavily conservative state Senate district east of Fresno, too many Republican candidates split the GOP vote and allowed two Democrats to move forward.

This year, some Democrats worried a similar dynamic could unfold in the governor’s race, where a crowded Democratic field raised the possibility that Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans, could claim the top two spots.

That outcome did not materialize. Becerra and Democrat Tom Steyer were well ahead of Bianco in the vote count, which Sinclair said showed how unlikely a Democratic shutout was despite the crowded field.

Sinclair said several factors could have made such a result possible: a weak or divided Democratic field, the abrupt exit of Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell and the lack of an endorsement from the state party or major California Democratic figures. But the concern itself may have prompted some Democratic voters to act strategically and consolidate behind candidates they believed could avoid a shutout.

The renewed debate has already prompted efforts to change the system.

Maviglio has filed a proposed ballot measure to repeal the top-two primary and return California to partisan primaries. He argues same-party general elections leave voters without a true party choice in November.

Supporters of top-two say same-party races can still provide meaningful distinctions, such as a contest between a business-aligned moderate and a progressive. But McGhee said many voters struggle to identify those ideological differences.

Others want California to move in a different direction: ranked-choice voting.

Charron’s group supports a system similar to Alaska’s, where the top four or five primary candidates advance to a ranked-choice general election. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If their first choice is eliminated, their vote transfers to their next choice.

Several California cities, including Oakland and San Francisco, already use ranked-choice voting in mayoral elections.

Charron said ranked-choice voting could encourage a broader candidate field and reduce concerns about spoiler candidates dividing a party’s vote.

In May, the nonpartisan nonprofit Independent Voter Project launched an effort to bring ranked-choice voting to California through a constitutional amendment that could appear before voters in 2028.

For now, California’s primary system remains in place. But after another election cycle in which the top-two system produced more familiar partisan matchups than political surprises, the debate over whether it has fulfilled its promise is far from settled.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Did California’s Top-Two Primary Deliver on Its Promise to Reshape Politics? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

As of Wednesday, former Shasta County elections office employee Joanna Francescut was leading Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis with about 56% of the vote. Because Francescut and Curtis were the only candidates on the primary ballot, Francescut is on track to win the office outright if the results hold.

Curtis, who has supported the local election measure, would remain in charge of the elections office through the end of the year. That could leave Shasta County heading into the November election with an incumbent elections chief who has just lost his own race in a county that has become a national focal point for election denialism.

Tuesday’s election in Shasta County was also marked by slow vote reporting and a safety concern raised by a local journalist, who said she witnessed a temporary elections worker activate what appeared to be a stun gun outside the elections office. A spokesperson for Curtis disputed that account, saying the device was a flashlight that made a buzzing sound.

Measure B, the Shasta County initiative requiring hand-counting of ballots, in-person voting and voter ID, was ahead by 2,464 votes. The measure was promoted by Shasta Election Reform, an activist group focused on election procedures.

Curtis, who describes himself as an “elections integrity” advocate, was appointed by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors in 2025. He had lived in Florida and had no prior experience running elections before his appointment. Francescut also sought the job at the time.

Since taking office, Curtis has made unproven claims that prior elections officials manipulated ballots to harm Republican candidates. His predecessors have rejected those allegations, noting that Shasta County is one of California’s most reliably Republican counties. Donald Trump received about two-thirds of the county’s vote in 2024.

Curtis fired Francescut shortly after becoming registrar. She has since sued the county, alleging wrongful termination.

County-initiated investigations later found examples of misconduct by Curtis while on the job, according to reporting by the San Francisco Chronicle. The investigations found that he mistreated employees, made casual threats of physical violence, encouraged staff to take unlawful actions and violated election law by campaigning for himself while conducting county business.

Curtis has also associated with figures who deny the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, questioned voting machines and reduced the number of ballot drop boxes available in Shasta County.

His office has drawn attention beyond Northern California because of connections to election controversies in Riverside County. Curtis served as an adviser to an activist group that made disputed claims of voting irregularities there. He also announced at a Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting that Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican candidate for governor, planned to seize ballots. Bianco’s investigators relied on the group’s claims when they sought court approval for the seizure, according to CalMatters.

The Riverside County episode helped prompt a new California law barring law enforcement officers from seizing ballots. Curtis has declined to tell local journalists whether he would cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies under President Trump if such agencies sought access to ballots despite the state law.

Brent Turner, a spokesperson for Curtis, said voters should not expect Curtis to try to hold onto power if Francescut’s lead persists.

“Clint is a law-and-order investigator of corrupted systems,” Turner told CalMatters. “That’s more, I think, a Trumpian kind of a play that you’re alluding to, and I have seen no sign of anything like that.”

A spokesperson for Francescut’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment sent through the campaign’s social media account.

If Measure B passes, Shasta County is likely to face a legal challenge. California courts have already found that a similar Huntington Beach voter ID measure approved in 2024 violated state law. Turner declined to discuss the legal questions surrounding Measure B and referred inquiries to the California Attorney General’s Office, which did not immediately respond to questions from CalMatters.

The Attorney General’s Office also did not immediately respond to questions about whether it is investigating the alleged stun gun incident at the Shasta County elections office.

Annelise Pierce, editor of the nonprofit Shasta Scout, said she was outside the elections office watching temporary workers hired by Curtis as they waited near the street for a vehicle carrying ballots from an outlying precinct.

Pierce said one of the men pulled out a device that appeared to be a stun gun and activated it, producing a loud zapping sound. She said the worker appeared to be showing the device to other men and did not try to hurt anyone, but the incident alarmed her. Pierce said she notified people inside the office, including observers from the Attorney General’s Office who were monitoring the election.

Curtis came outside and took the device from the worker, Pierce said.

Pierce said she was troubled that the incident did not appear to be treated seriously, given the heightened tensions around elections in Shasta County and broader concerns about threats to election workers and voters.

“I think the thing most upsetting was no one took it seriously when this seemed like a safety issue,” Pierce told CalMatters.

Turner said the device was not a stun gun.

“It unfortunately makes a noise that is not an appropriate noise, and that was, you know, addressed, but it was not a Taser,” he said.

Pierce said she believes the device was a flashlight-stun gun combination, though she did not photograph it.

California law prohibits members of the public from carrying firearms in polling places, brandishing weapons or intimidating voters and election workers. The law does not appear to clearly address nonlethal weapons such as stun guns in election offices.

Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Democrat who chairs the Assembly Elections Committee and previously served as Santa Cruz County’s elections chief, said the incident could prompt lawmakers to consider a more explicit ban on such devices in election settings.

“I’m certain that it’s something we’d be looking at to remedy in another election cycle,” Pellerin said, “because we just keep having to pass laws dealing with creative new unacceptable behaviors” during elections.

Shasta County also experienced significant delays in reporting results Tuesday night. Curtis had promised more efficient vote counting when he took over the office, but Shasta’s returns came in more slowly than in many other California counties.

By midnight, several counties, including neighboring Siskiyou and Lassen, had posted nearly all of their preliminary precinct results online. Shasta County’s website showed less than 2% of precincts reporting.

Turner said the delay was caused by a power outage at the aging Shasta County elections building, which he said slowed the process by about two hours. He said a similar outage occurred last year.

Turner, a Democrat who has advocated for open-source voting systems, urged patience and emphasized accuracy over speed — a message often delivered by California elections officials in a state where vote counting can take days or weeks because of the large number of mail ballots.

“The procedures that we’re implementing and have implemented result in good precision,” Turner said, “but there can be timing elements involved. I appreciate everybody wants the fastest count possible, but we really should desire accuracy and precision in the processing of the ballot over the desire to have a quick answer on election night.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Shasta County Election Skeptic Poised to Lose Seat as Voters Back Hand-Counted Ballots appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.