Voter ID laws passed in Seven states – but failed in California

The failure of the campaign to pass Proposition 39 in light of widespread national successes deserves some focus

Initiative measures to require photo identification or proof of citizenship appeared on the ballots of at least 8 states in this week’s election. In 7 of those states the measures passed – Nevada, North Carolina, Arkansas, Ohio Alaska, Kansas, and Wyoming.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

And in four of those states incumbent Republican Senators lost, but the voters still managed to pass Voter ID laws.

Yet Voter ID was defeated in California, profoundly so.

It is a convenient excuse for those being called to account on Prop. 39 to blame President Trump’s unfavorability in California for the loss, or even deflect blame to Republican voters themselves for “not turning out”. These are parts of the overall reason for the loss, but ones that could have been worked around by campaign strategists (Prop. 39 advertising eventually included people saying things like “I hate Trump” and “I didn’t vote for Trump”), given the widespread support FOR Proposition 39 going back to its inception.

A UC Berkeley poll had Prop. 39 winning by 17 points last April. A poll in mid-Sept. had it losing by 13 points.    That swing against Prop. 39 was 30 points in 5 months.  In the current election results, Prop. 39 is losing even by more, by 59% No and 41% Yes. That means the swing AGAINST Prop. 39 during the campaign was 36 points! Quite remarkable, and evidencing a spectacular failure of the campaign developed and managed by Yes on 39 committees.

The failure of the Prop. 39 campaign in light of the wonderful victory of the defeat of the Proposition 40 billionaire’s tax is especially damning.

There is room for many opinions on why Prop. 39 resulted in a train wreck. But at the risk of repeating myself, blaming Trump and Republican turnout are cheap diversions from its sponsors to accepting responsibility for an inept use of campaign resources. Trump is also unpopular in the other 7 states that passed voter ID laws last Tuesday, and that did not stop them from winning.

From my perspective, the Prop. 39 campaign failed from the very beginning to separate itself from Trump and his failed Save America Act. When they were winning by 17 points in April, it would have been obvious that opponents would campaign against it as “Trump, Trump, Trump!” From the beginning, the Prop. 39 campaign failed to effectively separate itself from Trump. That was a mistake, probably made because the politicians behind the measure were fearful of angering the President. In this they were wrong. If Trump got angry about it, it would have helped Prop. 39 to win, especially with Democrat voters needed for victory. But those politicians also cared about their own standing with the White House, so they held their punches and made them too late. This was selfish of them.

Click here to read the full article at James V. Lacy’s Substack

California election workers hit with criminal subpoenas as Trump DOJ turns up heat in voting showdown

At least four employees received grand jury subpoenas as the Trump administration questions voter citizenship

Leadership at the Department of Justice is escalating the Trump administration’s fight with California over suspected illegal voting, directing top federal prosecutors to pursue criminal subpoenas of local and state officials.

At least four election workers in California have received federal criminal grand jury subpoenas within the last week, CalMatters reported. At least one of these subpoenas was delivered on Thursday, after a federal judge rejected the DOJ’s request that California set aside mail-in ballots associated with over 20,000 registered voters whose citizenship the Trump administration has called into question.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

A subpoena sent to three election employees at the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s office requested records on how the department stops non-citizens from voting as well as “records relating to or involving evidence collected by your agency which tends to indicate an alien has voted in a federal election.” An official in Orange County received a similar subpoena, local media reported.

“This court believes it would be wise that any threats to state or county employees cease immediately,” the judge said during court proceedings. “These threats must stop,” he wrote in his Wednesday decision.

A Justice Department spokesperson pushed back against characterizations that the administration was targeting individuals with subpoenas, noting that receiving a subpoena doesn’t mean you are a target and that the DOJ generally doesn’t subpoena targets.

Click here to read the full article at Fox News

 

Sean Hannity blamed by Katie Zacharia for firing.

‘Borders on the absurd.’ California fights Trump lawsuit to set aside 20,000 ballots

California’s top attorney called on a federal judge to block the Trump administration’s efforts to force the state to set aside up to 20,000 ballots that prosecutors claim could have been mailed to noncitizens.

In a court filing Tuesday in federal court in Los Angeles, Attorney General Rob Bonta said the lawsuit the Trump administration filed last week “borders on the absurd.”

“At best, this litigation is a reckless political stunt,” Bonta’s filing reads. “At worst, it threatens to disenfranchise thousands of Californians this election.”

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Bonta’s filing came a day after federal prosecutors announced they’d charged 28 California green card holders for allegedly voting or registering to vote in violation of laws prohibiting noncitizens from participating in elections. In his filing, Bonta noted the arrests represent just .0001 percent of the 23 million registered voters in California.

In announcing those charges Monday, federal authorities said they also asked a judge to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that would force the state to segregate the 20,000 ballots. Bonta is urging the court not to issue the order.

The case has profound implications across the country with the midterm elections two weeks away. The U.S. Constitution gives states primary authority to independently conduct their elections. The Trump administration is testing whether it has the legal right to pause a state’s vote counts based on a list of possible noncitizen voters that federal officials acknowledge may be inaccurate.

In his filing Tuesday, Bonta said the Trump administration has lost 26 different lawsuits as it sought unredacted voter rolls from states in its hunt for evidence to support President Donald Trump’s unfounded voter fraud claims.

“The government has lobbed allegations of widespread voter fraud at the states, only for those allegations to crumble under scrutiny,” Bonta wrote. “As one court recently noted, the federal government’s citizenship records are ‘known to be unreliable.’”

The Department of Homeland Security recently claimed that Nevada had nearly 16,000 noncitizens on its voter rolls. DHS sent the state the names of only 185 voters. Nevada officials confirmed they were all U.S. citizens. Similarly, in Pennsylvania, DHS alleged the state had more than 14,000 noncitizen voters on its rolls, but prosecutors have only charged nine with illegally voting.

Acting Deputy U.S. Attorney General Trent McCotter said Monday that the 20,000 possible noncitizen voters in California were enough “to fill a small stadium,” but he acknowledged that number could be an overcount.

“There may be some names on there who it turns out ultimately are citizens,” McCotter said. “We’re not perfect, and that’s why we’ve asked California to cooperate with us.”

McCotter said its list of possible noncitizens was based on public voter rolls the federal government obtained from California, which it then cross-referenced with “other government databases, other public information.”

McCotter said all 28 defendants charged Monday are on the list of 20,000 names, a number that he said was “just the floor” and likely to grow.

Officials skeptical of federal methodology

State officials and independent election experts have been skeptical of the Trump team’s methodology after federal authorities notified state officials in July that there could be as many as 190,000 noncitizen voters in California.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Power struggle erupts in Trump’s White House as midterm losses loom

Top personnel are jockeying for position as some expect Chief of Staff Susie Wiles to step down after the elections.

White House aides, who have kept clashes muted during President Donald Trump’s second term, have begun jostling more openly for power as they brace for widespread midterm election losses and internal upheaval, according to interviews with 20 staffers, advisers and people close to the president.
The interviews, most of which were conducted on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive personnel machinations, paint a picture of infighting that has started to resemble the pitched battles of Trump’s first term.
Believing that Chief of Staff Susie Wiles might step down after the election, a handful of Trump aides, including Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, top housing official Bill Pulte and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, have begun angling for the position should it become available.
Wiles has given no indication to aides or allies that she plans to leave. Still, high-level White House staffers frequently cycle out of their stressful jobs after 18 months to two years, and Trump had four chiefs of staff, including an acting one, during his first term.
The past week in the White House has been “the new Wild Wild West,” one Trump ally said.
The jockeying started in earnest last week after Trump first reached out to Katie Zacharia about joining the administration as the new White House press secretary, a move he made without consulting Wiles, according to four people familiar with the decision. The unilateral action by the president was viewed internally as undermining Wiles, creating the impression of a less-disciplined operation and an unsettled center of power inside the West Wing.
For longtime observers of Trump’s inner circle, the friction this week harks back to his first term, when shifting factions of aides and family members vied for power and undermined one another in the process — a pattern this White House has mostly avoided, until now.
Compounding the uncertainty is the president, who has told allies he feels frustrated that no one is publicly defending him as vociferously as he would like 18 days before the midterm elections. Trump has embarked on a frenzied schedule of campaign rallies in the final stretch to juice enthusiasm among the Republican faithful, but with a historically low approval rating and growing voter frustration about high prices, he and the Republican Party face major political headwinds.
The president has been calling friends, White House aides and outside advisers because he appears worried that information is not reaching him, according to an adviser who received one of the calls. In these conversations, he has also vented about the midterms and the two outside advisers quarterbacking his political strategy, James Blair and Chris LaCivita, who are close allies of Wiles.
Among those who have been in contact with Trump is former aide Corey Lewandowski, a fierce rival of Wiles’s, who is supportive of Pulte, according to two people with knowledge of the conversations.
Reached for comment, Lewandowski said: “I have never spoken with the president about Bill Pulte being the chief of staff.”

 

Trump Casts Long Shadow Over California Campaigns

Even before Donald Trump’s confusing gaffe Monday night in Nebraska about Iran bombing Los Angeles and San Diego, the president was looming large over nearly every hotly contested California election campaign.

In one Southern California race, Trump’s long shadow produced a disjointed two-step. Rep. Ken Calvert is attacking fellow Republican Rep. Young Kim for her anti-Trump stances, even as a Calvert-aligned PAC sent Democratic voters in the district mailers playing up her support for and from Trump.

Confused? That’s understandable. Under the new map, Calvert’s 41st Congressional District in Southern California was redrawn as a solidly Democratic seat, so the 33-year incumbent chose to run in the neighboring 40th, which stretches from the eastern edge of Orange County into a large chunk of western Riverside County.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

That move set up the cycle’s strangest California race: Calvert versus Kim in a solidly Republican district that Trump carried by 12 points. It has been one of the nastiest campaigns in the country, with both sides fighting over who is more loyal to Trump. During the primary, a pro-Calvert super PAC, Americans 4 Security, spent $2.9 million on anti-Kim ads. Calvert has called Kim a “backstabbing RINO” and a “Trump-traitor,” and the PAC’s ads paint her as a liberal who hates Trump, citing her past vote to censure the president while ignoring her votes against Democrats’ efforts to impeach him.

Yet the same pro-Calvert super PAC sent two deliberately deceptive mailers to Democrats, playing up Kim’s pro-MAGA record. One showed a photo of a smiling Kim with the words “Young Kim, 100% with Trump,” and “a proven fighter who will stand with President Trump to deliver a bold American First Agenda.”

The goal was obvious: Turn off Democratic households and discourage party crossover support for Kim.

Kim answered with an ad focused on Calvert’s old scandals. It cites a 2009 Orange County Register editorial that ranked him among the most corrupt members of Congress, calls him swampy and sleazy, and revives a 1994 Los Angeles Times story about police catching him with a prostitute in his car. The ad ends by calling Calvert a “sleazebag.”

For all their fighting over Trump, both Calvert and Kim carefully avoided the furor over his Iran comments early this week, even as the remarks set off a raging debate on social media and in campaigns across the state. The timing could hardly have been worse for Republicans: The comments landed just as most California voters began receiving their mail-in ballots.

Speaking before a cheering crowd in Grand Island, Nebraska, Monday night, Trump defended his war with Iran with a line that landed hard 1,500 miles west: “Let them take out Los Angeles, let them take out San Diego.” The White House defended the line, saying the president was clearly warning about what Iran could do with a nuclear weapon, not encouraging it.

Although the explanation clearly fits the context of the president’s remarks, it didn’t satisfy everyone in his own party. By Tuesday morning, the Republican running in Southern California’s most closely watched open House seat was publicly breaking with him.

Jim Desmond, a San Diego County supervisor and Navy veteran who is the GOP nominee in the redrawn 48th District, said he “vehemently” disapproved of what the president said. The district is currently represented by retiring Rep. Darrell Issa.

Desmond’s quick distancing is a measure of how worried Republicans are about Trump’s waning popularity even in precincts he carried in previous elections – a dynamic playing out beyond California’s borders as well.

The newly drawn 48th district is a hook-shaped swath that includes areas in San Diego and Riverside counties, including around Vista, San Marcos, Palm Springs, and Temecula. The current configuration changed a 12-point Republican voter registration advantage to a 4-point Democratic lead. That, of course, was done by design. Late last year, state Democrats redrew the state’s congressional map through Proposition 50, the ballot measure voters approved last November. Gov. Gavin Newsom sold the measure to voters as a way to fight Republican “fire with fire,” abandoning independent redistricting to redraw California’s congressional map in Democrats’ favor (in response to Republicans’ redistricting effort in Texas). The new map was designed to put five of California’s nine Republican-held seats either at a strong Democratic advantage or within Democrats’ reach. The question now is not whether Democrats gain seats here, but how many. And the answer turns on a handful of genuinely competitive races.

Click here to read the full article in Real Clear Politics

“I hate Trump” says ad funded by Carl DeMaio

Donors to DeMaio’s Reform California may disagree

Trump suggests letting Iran ‘take out’ Los Angeles and San Diego at campaign rally

  • California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the president ‘deranged and dangerous.’
  • The crowd in Grand Island, Neb., cheered the remarks about Los Angeles and San Diego.

President Trump, speaking at a campaign rally Monday, suggested Iran could “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego — a comment that was possibly in jest but brought a quick reaction from leaders in California.

Trump said he wanted to “see a tremendous victory” in the November election, “’cause it verifies all the things we did. And again, remember, with the war it’s just artificial, it’s a little bit high.”

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

“It’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe,” he continued. “They can take out a city, let ’em take out Los Angeles, let ’em take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay.”

The crowd cheered.

His comment was met with criticism from California leaders — including at least one Trump-endorsed Republican candidate from San Diego.

Gov. Gavin Newsom posted on X: “After sending the National Guard and Marines to occupy California, Donald Trump is now saying our foreign enemies should ‘take out’ Los Angeles and San Diego. … He is deranged and dangerous.”

Then from his press office account: “Let’s be clear: The President is advocating for an attack on 10+ million U.S. residents in two of America’s largest cities. This is not normal. None of this is. And we will continue to remind folks of that every day.”

“San Diego is not collateral damage,” San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria posted. “We are not expendable. And we are never a ‘small price to pay.’ Keep our city out of your reckless war talk.”

Trump made the remarks during a rambling speech in which he said gas prices would be lower soon, touted his ouster of Venezuela’s dictator and made attacks on news outlets.

He was in Grand Island, Neb., encouraging residents of the deep-red state to vote as if he were on the ballot.

White House communications director Steven Cheung pushed back on the criticism on X.

“The media freakout over President Trump’s comments is not rooted in reality. He was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn’t been stopped. America is safer because of the President. Iran has no nuclear, no navy, no air force, and no money,” he wrote.

It was unclear whether Trump’s comments were based on any intelligence, and it’s far from clear that Iran has anywhere near the capability for a missile attack on the U.S.

In March, Iran launched missiles toward Diego Garcia, an Indian Ocean island that is home to a strategic U.K.-U.S. military base. The Associated Press reported at the time that Iran had a self-imposed limit on its ballistic missile program, limiting the range to 1,240 miles. Diego Garcia is well outside that range. U.S. officials, however, long have alleged that Iran’s space program could allow it to build intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Also in March, law enforcement agencies across California were warned that the Iran war could lead to a surprise drone attack in the Golden State. But sources told The Times there’s no credible intelligence to support it and officials said they did not take it seriously.

Trump has long had a strained relationship with Los Angeles, where he struggled to garner traction for his business ventures.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

A little-known provision in Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill has created a major dilemma for California

SACRAMENTO — California faces a new potential health care crisis precipitated by Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill.

Democrats across the country have been campaigning against the massive tax and spending law also known as HR1, particularly because of its cuts to healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office estimates at least 7.5 million people will lose health coverage because of the law.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

But beyond the projected health insurance losses, the law has created an additional problem in California. The new federal rules and state lawmakers’ response to them could create a state budget deficit or increase health insurance premiums for Californians, and some healthcare groups say time is running out to avert a crisis. On Friday, associations representing California doctors and health insurance plans sued the state to try to resolve the situation in time.

At issue is a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that forbids states from taxing public health plans at a higher rate than private health plans. California has for years imposed a higher tax on health plans that provide coverage through the state’s Medi-Cal program, which provides healthcare coverage to low-income residents. The plans actually support paying the tax, known as the Managed Care Organization tax, because it allows them to leverage federal matching funds. In other words, the tax is a win for them because it helps them access more money and generates more funding for public health providers.

Healthcare groups, including the California Medical Association, went to the ballot in 2024 and secured voter approval to enshrine the current structure of the tax in state law.

The new federal rules, however, forced Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers to rework the tax. Lawmakers were in a bind. If they eliminated or reduced the MCO tax, public health providers would face a significant reduction in funding. But if they raised taxes on private health plans to match the taxes on public providers, that would raise private insurance costs.

California must seek federal approval for its healthcare tax structure. Through the state budget, Newsom and lawmakers approved a version of the tax that complies with federal law by raising taxes on private insurers. That sparked massive backlash from those insurers, which say they will raise annual premiums by about $100 per person.

“It’s the Trump admin that was advocating HR1 in the first place, which is what necessitated this change,” H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the California Department of Finance, said in June. “We hope and expect it will be approved.”

The Newsom administration also plans to submit another version of the tax that would essentially maintain the status quo — in violation of federal law but in compliance with the voter-enacted state law. Administration officials do not expect the Trump administration to approve that version of the tax, Palmer said.

The strategy is a gamble. If the Trump administration rejects the waiver request, state lawmakers and the governor would need to fill a multibillion-dollar hole in the state budget.

Click here to read the full article in the SF Chronicle

Can California stop Trump from drilling off its coast? A new law tries

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday signed legislation to strengthen California’s protections against offshore drilling amid escalating efforts by the Trump administration to open up the coast to new oil and gas operations.

The new state law, Assembly Bill 1448 from Assemblymember Gregg Hart (D-Santa Barbara), will make it illegal for oil producers to use oil rigs, pipelines and other equipment currently in state waters to support any new federal offshore oil leases. It also strengthens state oversight of existing leases by requiring additional scrutiny and waiting periods for renewals, extensions or changes.

The law comes after the Trump administration proposed opening California’s entire coast to offshore oil and gas drilling for the first time in more than four decades — an action the U.S. Interior Department said will “unleash American offshore energy.”

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The state has about two dozen aging oil platforms off its coast, but has not seen new oil leases in federal water since 1984, largely because of public opposition after a disastrous oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969.

“California has made it clear that our coast is not open for expanded offshore drilling,” Hart said in a statement. “As the Trump Administration continues its reckless push to expand fossil fuel production in federal waters, AB 1448 ensures that existing infrastructure in state waters cannot be used to facilitate those efforts.”

The White House has also challenged California’s control over its coast, ordering a review of the California Coastal Commission that could strip its authority over federal coastal projects.

The administration has also intervened on behalf of Sable Offshore, allowing the company to revive a long-dormant pipeline off the coast of Santa Barbara despite objections from California officials and regulators. A July poll from the Public Policy Institute of California found 63% of voters in the state oppose more drilling off the coast.

Environmental groups applauded the bill’s passage Tuesday.

“California has drawn a powerful line in the sand to further defend the state’s right to protect its coast from federal offshore oil drilling,” said Joseph Gordon, campaign director with the nonprofit Oceana, which co-sponsored the legislation. “California’s beaches, coastal communities, and multibillion-dollar economy depend on oceans free of oil spills, both now and for future generations.”

Brady Bradshaw, California advocate at the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, said the bill “gives our ocean and coast much needed protection.”

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times