More stories

  • in

    Jerry Lewis, Master of the Congressional Earmark, Dies at 86

    A powerful legislator, he became chairman of the House Appropriations Committee in 2005 but faced scrutiny from the Justice Department for his ties to a lobbyist.Jerry Lewis, a powerful House Republican whose largess to his district in California established him as a master of the earmark but led to an investigation of his actions by the Justice Department, died on July 15 at his home in Redlands, Calif. He was 86.His son Dan confirmed the death but said he did not know the cause.Mr. Lewis was elected in 1978 and served 17 terms in the House. A conservative who preferred working with Democrats to confrontational politics, he was a major fund-raiser for Republican candidates; his party’s third-ranking member, as conference chairman; and, briefly, chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.“He represented a style of politics that no longer dominates the party,” John H. Pitney Jr., an aide of Mr. Lewis’s in the mid-1980s who is now a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College in California, said by phone. “He was very much an ally of Bob Michel” — the former House minority leader from Maryland — “and never a favorite of the Gingrich faction, which took him down from the chairmanship of the House Republican Conference” in 1992. (Newt Gingrich, then the House minority whip and later the speaker, supported the successful candidacy of Dick Armey of Texas over Mr. Lewis.)Mr. Lewis was best known for sending enormous sums of money back to his district through the use of earmarks, provisions in congressional spending bills that direct funds to a specific recipient. He sent tens of millions of dollars to educational, medical and research institutions, military installations, a dam on the Santa Ana River, extensive tree clearing in the San Bernardino National Forest and other projects in his Southern California district.In 2005, when he became chairman of the Appropriations Committee — after six years as chairman of its defense subcommittee — he told The Press-Enterprise of Riverside about his ambition for his district.“My goal as chairman is not just to create a huge funnel to San Bernardino and Riverside counties,” he said. “But I have a feeling we will in California manage to get our share.”But in 2006, the Justice Department began an investigation into whether Mr. Lewis had improperly steered millions of dollars in earmarks to clients of a lobbyist, Bill Lowery, a former Republican congressman from California and an old friend. Some of the clients donated to Mr. Lewis’s re-election campaign.Subpoenas were issued seeking details about how communities and businesses in Mr. Lewis’s district chose to hire Mr. Lowery’s firm, how much they paid, and the nature of communications between the firm and Mr. Lewis.Four years later, the Justice Department dropped the investigation.Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that had been critical of Mr. Lewis’s ties to Mr. Lowery, condemned the Justice Department’s decision.“Exactly what will a politician have to do for the Department of Justice to sit up and take notice?” Melanie Sloan, then the group’s executive director, said in an interview with The Associated Press.Looking back on the investigation in 2012, shortly before he retired from the House, Mr. Lewis told the Southern California public radio station KPCC, “It’ll always be there, and the reality is that we have attempted to be a positive impact in public service.”Charles Jeremy Lewis was born on Oct. 21, 1934, in Seattle and moved with his family to San Bernardino, Calif., as a child. His father, Edward, was a civil engineer who worked on the construction of New Deal projects. His mother, Ruth, was a homemaker.After studying veterinary science at the University of California, Berkeley, he transferred to the University of California, Los Angeles, where he received a bachelor’s degree in political science. After working in the insurance business, Mr. Lewis served on the San Bernardino Board of Education and then was elected to the California State Assembly. He served there for a decade. During his tenure, he pushed for voter approval to make a reporter shield law — to protect the confidentiality of sources — an amendment to the state constitution and wrote legislation that established an air pollution control agency in Southern California.Once elected to the House, he was named to the Appropriations Committee in his second term and became chairman of the subcommittee that funds the Department of Veterans Affairs, NASA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Four years later he took over the defense subcommittee. His two years as Appropriations Committee chairman ended in 2007, after Democrats won the House majority.In addition to his son Dan, Mr. Lewis is survived by his wife, Arlene (Willis) Lewis; a daughter, Jenifer Engler; two other sons, Jerry Jr., and Jeff; a stepdaughter, Julie Willis Leon; two stepsons, Jimmy and Marty Willis; six grandchildren; three great-grandchildren; and two brothers, Ray and John. His marriage to Sally Lord ended in divorce.Having the same name as a famous comedian was something that trailed Mr. Lewis throughout his career. “He had a good sense of humor” about it, Dan Lewis said. He recalled his father campaigning at a parade in Apple Valley, Calif., where people were eager to see the funnyman, not the lawmaker. The crowd might have been disappointed, he said, but the congressman “wasn’t annoyed.” More

  • in

    Who Is Running Against Newsom in the Recall?

    Tuesday: More than 40 candidates are vying to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom if voters remove him from office.Caitlyn Jenner arriving to give a speech to the Republican Party of Orange County last month.Leonard Ortiz/Orange County Register, via Getty ImagesGood morning.We’re just about two months away from a closely watched election that will indelibly shape the state’s future. And as of this weekend, we know — for the most part — who will be on the ballot.I am, of course, referring to the special election to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom from office, which is set to take place on Sept. 14. Voters will be asked two questions: First, should Newsom be kicked out of his job early? And second, who should replace him if the majority of voters say that he should, indeed, get the boot?On Saturday, Shirley Weber, the state’s elections chief, posted a list of candidates vying to take over for the governor, which will be certified this week. On it were 41 Californians — the ones who turned in their paperwork by the Friday deadline.Here’s what you need to know about who is on the list, who is not and what’s ahead:Forty-one is a lot fewer than the 74 who officially announced their intent to run, and it’s also a lot fewer than the more than 100 candidates on the ballot in the 2003 recall of Gray Davis. What’s up with that?Although a judge gave recall proponents more time to gather signatures for their cause because of the pandemic, the rest of the recall timeline has been compressed as Democrats, who have almost entirely fallen in line with Newsom, pushed to get the question in front of voters while they’re feeling optimistic about their post-pandemic lives.And candidates had to file their paperwork 59 days before the election.It’s not clear what other factors may have led to the narrower field, but one thing is certain: There are no serious Democratic challengers. (There had been speculation about whether any might take the opportunity, but both the governor and national party leaders have made it clear they would not be happy about someone potentially splitting the vote.)What were the requirements for would-be candidates to qualify?Candidates must be United States citizens who are currently qualified to vote for California governor..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}In order to file for candidacy, they had to pay a fee of about $4,200, which is, according to the secretary of state’s office, 2 percent of the first year’s salary for being governor.Or, instead of that filing fee, they could submit 7,000 valid signatures from voters supporting their run. Under a new law, the candidates also had to file the last five years of their tax returns.That’s where the conservative radio talk show host Larry Elder is in dispute with the state.The radio talk show host Larry Elder speaks to supporters during a campaign stop in Norwalk. Marcio Jose Sanchez/Associated PressElder was told that he didn’t file the required tax information, The Associated Press reported.In response, Elder said on Twitter that he planned to sue in order to get on the ballot, which will be sent to millions of Californians — a fight that he immediately asked supporters to help pay for.Other candidates have sparred with officials over how they’ll be portrayed on the ballot, including Newsom himself, over whether he would be identified as a Democrat, with a “D” next to his name (he won’t). Kevin Faulconer, seen as the top Republican in the race, would like to be identified as the “retired” mayor of San Diego, which he is, but the ballot lists current roles.So who else is on the candidate list?The broad consensus so far is that there is no Arnold Schwarzenegger, a unifying force for Republicans in 2003.Of the 41 candidates, 21 are listed as Republicans. Many are listed as entertainers or businesspeople.There’s Caitlyn Jenner, the Olympian and reality television star. There’s Kevin Paffrath, a YouTube personality who is suing the state to include his online nickname on the official ballot. Kevin Kiley — the state legislator who emerged as a chief antagonist of the governor — recently announced he would join the race and is now on the list.Also on the list is John Cox, the businessman who lost to Newsom in 2018 by a wide margin. You might better remember him as the guy who brought a live bear to a campaign event.Angelyne, the pink Corvette-driving Hollywood denizen, is running without a party preference. Jeff Hewitt, a Riverside County supervisor who has railed against pandemic restrictions, is running as a Libertarian.Faulconer has tried to distinguish himself from the rest of the pack with more substantive policy plans. His run, political experts say, is more likely an effort to get Californians more familiar with his name ahead of a run for governor in the regular election next year.For more:Read more about who is in the race from The Associated Press.Here are the answers to 12 questions you probably have about the Newsom recall effort.Read about why the election will be on Sept. 14, rather than later in the year.See how all the candidates make their money by looking at their tax returns in this article by The Sacramento Bee.Here’s what else to know todayThe Bootleg fire near Oregon’s border with California has grown to 240,000 acres.Payton Bruni/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe Tamarack fire, a wildfire near Lake Tahoe that has been burning since July 4, expanded over the weekend, prompting a wave of evacuations.Pacific Gas and Electric said a blown fuse on one of its utility poles may have sparked the Dixie fire in Northern California. So far, the wildfire has burned through 30,000 acres.For the Napa Valley wine industry, climate change is leading to desperation. Some growers are spraying sunscreen on grapes, to try to prevent roasting, while others are irrigating with treated wastewater from toilets and sinks because reservoirs are dry.Removing leaves from zinfandel vines at the Green & Red Vineyard near St. Helena.Mike Kai Chen for The New York TimesThe question of what to do about violence against older Asian residents in San Francisco has become a source of division. Many residents of Chinese descent are calling for an increase in police patrols, while the city’s Asian American leaders say they would rather not involve law enforcement.A preliminary investigation into an explosion in residential South Los Angeles found that the amount of explosive material placed into a containment truck by bomb squad technicians exceeded the vehicle’s capacity, Chief Michel Moore of the Los Angeles Police Department told ABC 7. Officers were trying to dispose of illegal fireworks when the explosion occurred.CalMatters details a proposed tuition hike from the University of California, which would allow campuses to raise tuition for each incoming class every year, indefinitely. The university has already received $1.3 billion in aid this year.Eloy Ortiz Oakley, the California Community Colleges chancellor, will temporarily join the Biden administration as an adviser to the United States education secretary, according to The Los Angeles Times.A vote from the Oakland City Council on Tuesday will decide the future of the Athletics in Oakland, as a no vote would kill the financial prospect of a new ballpark at Howard Terminal.Collin Morikawa, a 24-year-old Californian, won the British Open golf tournament on Sunday. It was his first appearance at the tournament.Like spectators, athletes are becoming ever more aware of the defects in the Olympic system. Allyson Felix, the American track star who will be making her fifth Olympic appearance at the Tokyo Games, was part of a push to get the Summer Games for Los Angeles. She believes that athletes do not have a seat at the table when the decisions are being made.California Today goes live at 6:30 a.m. Pacific time weekdays. Tell us what you want to see: CAtoday@nytimes.com. Were you forwarded this email? Sign up for California Today here and read every edition online here.Jill Cowan grew up in Orange County, graduated from U.C. Berkeley and has reported all over the state, including the Bay Area, Bakersfield and Los Angeles — but she always wants to see more. Follow along here or on Twitter. More

  • in

    Local Recalls, by the Numbers

    Friday: Gov. Gavin Newsom is one of dozens of public officials facing recall attempts across California. Here’s why.The campaign against Gov. Gavin Newsom is just one of the efforts on the upcoming recall ballot in California.Mike Blake/ReutersGood morning.Most Californians know about the recall. You know which one. The one where we will be asked, on Sept. 14, whether we think Gov. Gavin Newsom should be removed from office.But you may not know about all the others.The recall effort against Newsom is merely the highest profile of dozens of efforts underway to boot elected officials across the state from their jobs.There are petitioners seeking support for kicking out three San Francisco school board members, after the panel spent time fighting over a plan to rename schools rather than figuring out how to get students back into classrooms. Community members are trying to oust three of five members of the Shasta County board of supervisors, who they said bowed to “Pharoah Newsom” by enacting pandemic restrictions.Various Angelenos have said they want to remove at least two City Council members (Mike Bonin and Nithya Raman, who has served just six months) and their newly elected district attorney, George Gascón, known as a progressive reformer. His successor as San Francisco’s district attorney, Chesa Boudin, known as an even more progressive prosecutor, is also facing a recall attempt for enacting policies that got him elected.While all these might lead you to believe that the state is in the midst of a kind of recall mania — perhaps inspired by the Newsom recall — Joshua Spivak, a senior fellow at Wagner College’s Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform, said that this was actually par for the course.“I think a lot of these efforts would have happened anyway,” Spivak, who runs a blog tracking and analyzing recall elections across the country, told me.Last year, Spivak said, he counted 61 recall attempts in California, including one that ended when its target, the widely respected mayor of Auburn, died in a plane crash. Of those 61, just 11 made it onto a ballot and eight of those votes ended with the target being recalled..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}Across the country last year, Spivak counted 434 recall attempts, up from 344 attempts in 2019. Still, only 80 of those 434 got a result: 42 officials were ousted, 14 resigned and 24 survived the votes.Taken together, these stats suggest an increase in awareness of the possibility of recalling elected officials, coupled with a pandemic that seemed almost tailor-made to sow discontent with leaders — especially local ones.Spivak attributed a rise in attempts to recall school board members to frustration with school closures, for instance. And he said that if it hadn’t been for the pandemic lockdowns or the extra time for proponents to gather signatures, the current Newsom recall effort — one of many since the governor was elected — wouldn’t have made it.Another shift that’s playing out in California, Spivak said, is what kind of issues spur recall attempts.Once, local recalls were nearly always born of nonpartisan disputes or allegations of misconduct. (This year, one example would be the recall effort constituents led against Dominic Foppoli, then the mayor of Windsor, after he was accused by multiple women of sexual assault. He resigned.)Now, though, Spivak said, “local issues have been subsumed by national issues.” The local recall efforts, in other words, have become proxies for fights over former President Donald J. Trump or criminal justice reform.Spivak put the efforts to recall progressive district attorneys in that category. That’s happening across the country.For more:Ezra Klein writes for The Times’s Opinion section that the Newsom recall effort is a farce: “California is littered with well-meaning ideas to increase democratic participation that have decayed into avenues that organized interests use to foil the public will.”Read this deep dive from The Los Angeles Times on California’s “recall fever.”If you missed it, here’s why the special recall election is set for Sept. 14 and what it means.Dig deeper into the effort to recall Gascón.Read about the ins and outs of recall elections on Spivak’s Recall Elections Blog here.Here’s what else to know todayDavid Wells of the Brooktrails Township Fire Department takes a water break after working to douse flames at a home in Redwood Valley.Kent Porter/The Press Democrat, via Associated PressSteven Moity and The West Coast is bracing for another dangerous heat wave with record-breaking temperatures this weekend. In parts of California, the highs will be in the triple digits.Amid a deepening drought, Gov. Gavin Newsom asked people and businesses to voluntarily cut water use by 15 percent, The Associated Press reports.A magnitude 5.9 earthquake struck Central California on Thursday afternoon, The Merced Sun-Star reports. Though aftershocks were felt from Los Angeles to the Oregon border, the earthquake is unlikely to have caused significant damage.The California Geological Survey released new tsunami hazard maps for the Bay Area. If a once-in-a-millennium tsunami hit, it could inundate more of the waterfront than scientists previously feared, The San Francisco Chronicle reports.A $1.1 billion plan to clean trash and graffiti across the state has begun. Newsom says it will create 11,000 jobs, and 400 people have already been hired or offered a job in the past week, The Los Angeles Times reports.The Sacramento Bee reports that a Sacramento judge rejected a bid to halt the state’s early release of inmates. Since the height of the pandemic, emergency rules intended to lessen prison crowding have allowed inmates to accrue good conduct credits more quickly.A judge suspended criminal proceedings on Thursday against a man accused in an Orange County mass shooting. The lawyers for the suspect, who was shot in the head by a police officer, said they did not believe their client was mentally fit to stand trial, The Orange County Register reports.Last week, fuel shortages caused airlines to divert, delay or cancel more than 20 flights at Fresno Yosemite International Airport. The Fresno Bee discovered that a shortage of labor was the underlying cause for the jet fuel concerns.NBC Los Angeles reports that the average price, last week, for a gallon of gas was $3.13 in the U.S., whereas in California, it was $4.30 per gallon, and analysts expect more increases because of the state’s higher gas tax and stricter environmental regulations.And finally …Sreethan Gajula, 14, of Waxhaw, N.C., studies before the start of the Scripps National Spelling Bee alongside his mother Smitha Vangamudi, right, and sister Samhita Gajula, 8, in Orlando.Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesBy the time this newsletter hits your inbox, this year’s Scripps National Spelling Bee will have a winner. But if you for some reason feel like reliving what seems to be a rather potent form of childhood humiliation, you can try this spelling quiz, featuring words that have appeared in the pages of The Times.And catch up on The Times’s live coverage of the bee here.California Today goes live at 6:30 a.m. Pacific time weekdays. Tell us what you want to see: CAtoday@nytimes.com. Were you forwarded this email? Sign up for California Today here and read every edition online here.Jill Cowan grew up in Orange County, graduated from U.C. Berkeley and has reported all over the state, including the Bay Area, Bakersfield and Los Angeles — but she always wants to see more. Follow along here or on Twitter. More

  • in

    The Gavin Newsom Recall Is a Farce

    After a slow start, California ranks 10th in the nation for coronavirus vaccinations. It’s down to about three cases per 100,000 residents. Its economy is booming. According to Bloomberg, the state “has no peers among developed economies for expanding G.D.P., creating jobs, raising household income, manufacturing growth, investment in innovation, producing clean energy and unprecedented wealth through its stocks and bonds.” State coffers are flush: The governor’s office estimates a $76 billion budget surplus. The Legislative Analyst’s Office puts it at $38 billion. (The difference turns on the definition of the word “surplus.”) More

  • in

    Why the Recall Vote Will Be on Sept. 14

    Wednesday: Here’s what to know about the date of the special election that will allow voters to decide whether to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom.Supporters of removing California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, in Carlsbad last week.Mike Blake/ReutersGood morning.At first, political experts said that if it happened, a special election to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom from office would happen later in the year — probably November? There was a complex, lengthy process that would have to take place first, and the earlier estimates accounted for all of that.But now, here we are, with a date for the election that is much sooner than expected: Sept. 14. How? Why? What does it mean for Newsom and his opponents? Here’s what you need to know.Who set the election date for Sept. 14?The date was decided by Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, a Democrat who is closely allied with the governor. It was the soonest that county officials said they could pull together a special election.Previous estimates were later because the recall election process required an additional step, a cost review, before a date could be set. But last month, lawmakers passed a bill allowing the state to bypass that review and pick an earlier date.So, over objections that legislators were changing the rules of the game in order to protect the governor, that’s what they did.The special election is expected to cost taxpayers some $276 million, state officials said. That, of course, doesn’t include campaign expenditures. In total, David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University, told me he expected the spending to be somewhere around half a billion dollars.But McCuan said this was all part of what he described as “protest politics,” in which politicians are judged less by what they do and more by what sides of contentious issues they represent..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}“It’s the weaponization of Trump’s playbook through direct democracy by both Republicans and Democrats,” he said.Is that date good or bad for Newsom?It’s clear that Newsom and his advisers believe the earlier date is good for him. It will allow the governor to take advantage of Californians’ optimism as they emerge from the pandemic, and will keep short the amount of time left for serious contenders to enter the race. (They have only about two more weeks to jump in. More than 50 candidates are already on the ballot, including a handful of well-funded Republicans.)And indeed, McCuan said, from a lawmaking standpoint, the Sept. 14 timing is advantageous for the governor.It’s near the end of the legislative session. This year, the state’s Democrats will have items on their wish lists from a huge budget surplus.“The Newsom team is going to want to parcel those out based upon who’s playing well in their sandbox,” he said. “He’ll have bills in front of him to sign or veto as he’s going into the recall.”Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke at an event where he outlined measures to help restaurants and bars reopen.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesIs that date good or bad for the governor’s opponents?Experts said it may not be bad for proponents of the recall — even if it’s good for Newsom.Joshua Spivak, a senior fellow at Wagner College’s Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform, told me that the rush to get out the ballot could backfire.Right now, the voters who are most “engaged — and probably enraged,” are those who would like to boot the governor, as Spivak wrote in an opinion piece for The Los Angeles Daily News. Having a later election would give the Newsom campaign more time to raise money and convince the state’s Democratic base that it’s important to vote.A later election date also would give Newsom more time to respond to any unforeseen delays or complications with school reopenings in the fall; prolonged school closures were a major point of criticism for Newsom’s Republican opponents.Still, McCuan said, even if the recall effort fails — as it is expected to do — it will have been worth it for Republicans if they’re able to accomplish one thing: increase party registration in a state where Democrats have dominated and the G.O.P. has been divided over its future.Republicans can also use the recall as an opportunity to hone a message for California voters before the 2022 midterm elections.For more:Find all the answers to your questions about the recall here.Read more about the rule change lawmakers recently passed from The Sacramento Bee.Kevin Kiley, a state lawmaker who has been a chief opponent of the governor’s, pushing back repeatedly against pandemic restrictions, announced on Twitter that he would run against him in the recall.Here’s what else to know todayVisitors walked by the salt flats of Badwater Basin inside Death Valley National Park last month.Patrick T. Fallon/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesA heat wave is expected across the West this week. Here’s how things look in the Bay Area, the Central Valley and Southern California.Here’s the latest on the Delta variant in the state from The Los Angeles Times.The collapse of an apartment building in Surfside, Fla., is raising concerns about the structural integrity of San Francisco’s Millennium Tower, CNN reports.CapRadio investigates why FEMA rejected 95 percent of aid applications during last year’s disastrous wildfire season.State lawmakers delayed until next year a vote on a bill that would create supervised drug sites for opioid users, The Associated Press reports.CalMatters explored the two recent decrees, one from the Biden administration, and the other from the Supreme Court, that affect the management of the state’s water supply.A second round of $600 stimulus checks is part of the current budget negotiations. The San Francisco Chronicle explains how to know if you’ll get one.After a huge explosion of illegal fireworks last week in south Los Angeles, more than 20 families were evacuated from the area and have yet to return home, The Los Angeles Times reports.The Guardian explores how Black Wall Streets in California have weathered the pandemic and are changing the cities around them.CalMatters looks at how the state is spending $61 million to create highway crossings to keep wildlife and drivers safe.Los Angeles’s Tyler, the Creator notched his second No. 1 on the Billboard album chart this week with “Call Me if You Get Lost.”Real estate: What $3.3 million gets you in California.And finally …Growing up in India, Vijaya Srivastava, now 72, never had access to swimming pools.Aubrey Trinnaman for The New York TimesFor the first 68 years of her life, Vijaya Srivastava stayed on dry land. She hadn’t grown up with access to swimming pools, and as an adult she spent time volunteering or walking around the Berkeley Hills to stay fit.But, as she explains in this new interview series, she decided to learn to swim.If you need a little motivation today, take to heart Srivastava’s advice: “Don’t give yourself an option to give up.”California Today goes live at 6:30 a.m. Pacific time weekdays. Tell us what you want to see: CAtoday@nytimes.com. Were you forwarded this email? Sign up for California Today here and read every edition online here.Jill Cowan grew up in Orange County, graduated from U.C. Berkeley and has reported all over the state, including the Bay Area, Bakersfield and Los Angeles — but she always wants to see more. Follow along here or on Twitter. More

  • in

    Going to the Beach in California? Here’s How to Check if It’s Polluted

    Friday: Heal the Bay’s annual beach report card is out. Here’s what to know. Also, the recall election now has a date.Pacific Beach in San Diego last July.Bing Guan/ReutersGood morning.This weekend, antsy Californians are projected to hit the road in record numbers for a newly unfettered Fourth of July holiday. And, as usual, many of us are headed for the coast.Last year around this time, our relationship with the beach was a little complicated. Amid an uptick in coronavirus cases, Gov. Gavin Newsom had implored us to avoid places, including many of the state’s most popular Independence Day destinations, where there were likely to be crowds. Beaches had been closed for that reason earlier in the year.But as the months marched on it became clear that California’s beaches were some of the state’s most important respites — from oppressive, dangerous heat inland, from the monotony of our homes. Many beaches were soon reopened, with restrictions in some places.This underscored the urgency of keeping the state’s waterways clean, said Shelley Luce, the president and chief executive of the environmental advocacy group Heal the Bay.“We’ve always been dependent on our beaches as open space, as a place to relax,” she recently told me. “In 2020, they were open and available, and people were seeking out that connection to nature.”Heal the Bay this week released its 31st annual Beach Report Card and its third River Report Card. The grades aim to help Californians better understand the water quality in the places where they may be swimming. The report assigns A through F letter grades based on bacterial pollution levels to some 500 beaches, almost all in California, and 28 freshwater recreation sites in Los Angeles County.The findings paint a mixed picture of our drought-wracked summer. While the vast majority of beaches had excellent water quality in summer 2020, it was most likely because there was no rain to wash pollution into the sea.“The first rain washes so much pollution in, and in what used to be our normal weather pattern, each one was less polluting than the last one,” Luce said. “Now there’s weeks or months before the next flush, so pollution builds up again.”In other words, we’re facing more extreme fluctuations in water quality, which could then tip into dangerous levels of pollution more often.“We have to pay a lot of attention to our wet weather runoff,” Luce said.And, she said, the drought was likely to result in frequent and severe wildfires, which can lead to ash that pollutes nearby water for months afterward.Still, it’s not all dire news. Luce said that during Heal the Bay’s three decades of putting out the report card, leaders have taken steps to mitigate pollution, like diverting storm drains away from beaches. In places like Los Angeles County, they’ve started longer-term projects aimed at restoring wetlands and green space so that storm water doesn’t flow straight from urban areas into the ocean.Heal the Bay also added grades for beaches in Tijuana this year, she said, in hopes of drawing attention to pollution there.So which beaches deserve extra attention? And where should you be careful about getting in the water?Surfing at Moonstone Beach.Alexandra Hootnick for The New York TimesHere are this year’s 10 Beach Bummers:1. Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge at the Tijuana River mouth in San Diego County2. Erckenbrack Park in San Mateo County3. Capitola Beach, west of the jetty in Santa Cruz County4. Gull Park in San Mateo County5. Marina “Mother’s” Beach, between the lifeguard tower and boat dock in Los Angeles County6. Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge, north of the Tijuana River in San Diego County7. Clam Beach County Park at Strawberry Creek in Humboldt County8. Marlin Park in San Mateo County9. Candlestick Point at Windsurfer Circle in San Francisco10. East Beach at Mission Creek in Santa Barbara CountyFor more:See the full beach and river report cards here.Read more about the 2019 report card.Here’s what else to know todayGov. Gavin Newsom of California walked through the remnants of the headquarters building in September as he inspected the fire damage to Big Basin Redwoods State Park.Pool photo by Lipo ChingThe state’s lieutenant governor announced on Thursday that she had set Sept. 14 as the date for the special election to determine whether Gov. Gavin Newsom should become the state’s second governor to be recalled from office.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California may not require charities soliciting contributions in the state to report the identities of their major donors.The governor rolled back a more ambitious wildfire prevention plan, along with more than half a billion dollars in fuel reduction promises, CapRadio and NPR report.The San Francisco Chronicle examined the major fires burning in the state.Almost five out of every six coronavirus cases went undetected in the first months of the pandemic, The Los Angeles Times reports.A California couple who mowed down 36 protected Joshua trees to clear their land for a new house have been fined $18,000.Seventeen people, including 10 law enforcement officers, were wounded on Wednesday when part of a cache of improvised explosives blew up in South Los Angeles during what was supposed to be a controlled detonation by a police bomb squad.California Democrats are losing patience with the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, a powerful labor ally, Politico reports.Homicides in California jumped by 31 percent last year, making it the worst year for homicides since 2007, The Associated Press reports.People gathered in San Francisco’s Chinatown in March to commemorate victims of anti-Asian violence.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesA new report found that reports of hate crimes against Asian Americans rose by 107 percent in 2020, The Sacramento Bee reports.More than 200 prominent women from around the world wrote an open letter urging Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and Google to “prioritize the safety of women” on their platforms.President Biden wants to use pollution rules to rapidly lift electric car sales, but there are hurdles ahead.California’s gas taxes rose again yesterday, KCRA reports.The wealth management firm that was set to take over as the co-conservator of Britney Spears’s estate, alongside her father, has requested to resign from the arrangement, citing Spears’s public criticisms of the conservatorship.Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon are ramping up offerings for cloud gaming that let people enjoy high-quality games on any device.A grass-roots organization in Los Angeles’s Chinatown said some new arrivals to the neighborhood were virtue signaling on Instagram about social justice issues but not addressing inequalities at home, LA Eater reports.The Monterey Car Week auctions in California, among the most important of the year to collectors, will return on Aug. 12-14.And finally …A child rode along the parade route during the Santa Monica Fourth Of July Parade in 2019.Richard Vogel/Associated PressCalifornia Today will be off on Monday for the Fourth of July holiday. Have a great weekend, and stay safe.California Today goes live at 6:30 a.m. Pacific time weekdays. Tell us what you want to see: CAtoday@nytimes.com. Were you forwarded this email? Sign up for California Today here and read every edition online here.Jill Cowan grew up in Orange County, graduated from U.C. Berkeley and has reported all over the state, including the Bay Area, Bakersfield and Los Angeles — but she always wants to see more. Follow along here or on Twitter. More

  • in

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Recall Election Set for Sept. 14.

    The Republican-led, pandemic-fueled campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom of California got an official election date on Thursday, as the state’s lieutenant governor announced that voters would head to the polls on the issue on Sept. 14.The date, just 75 days away and the soonest that county officials said they could manage to pull together a special election, was released shortly after the California secretary of state formally certified the recall petition. And it came after Mr. Newsom’s fellow Democrats in the State Legislature decided to expedite the process.California is overwhelmingly Democratic and Mr. Newsom is widely expected to prevail, particularly as the state has emerged from the coronavirus crisis. The conventional wisdom among his advisers and allies has been that he will benefit from a swift decision, while Californians are still basking in relief from the reopening of the state’s economy, and before the autumn wildfires begin in earnest.The timeline, set by a fellow Democrat, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, also severely restricts the ability of prospective challengers to get onto the ballot, leaving only about two weeks for them to join the race to replace Mr. Newsom. More than 50 candidates are already on the ballot, with a handful of well-funded Republicans seriously campaigning.Expected to cost some $276 million, the special election will be the second time in state history that Californians have voted on whether to recall a sitting governor. The first resulted in the ouster of Gray Davis and the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003.Mr. Newsom and his supporters, who have derided the recall campaign as a last-ditch ploy for relevance by right-wing extremists, said on Thursday that they welcomed the decision of voters.“This Republican recall is a naked attempt by Trump Republicans to grab control in California — powered by the same Republicans who refused to accept the results of the presidential election,” said Juan Rodriguez, the leader of the governor’s campaign organization.Kevin Faulconer, the former mayor of San Diego and one of the Republican contenders, countered that “this movement is powered by Californians from every community — Democrats, Republicans and Independents.”Mr. Faulconer added, “Change is coming for California and retirement is coming for Gavin Newsom.”Recall attempts are not uncommon in California, with every governor since 1960 facing at least one. But getting a recall onto the ballot is rare.The campaign against Mr. Newsom languished for months before a series of pandemic-related missteps, judicial decisions and voter fury landed the governor — a liberal in a Democratic state who was elected in 2018 in a landslide — in a perfect political storm. More

  • in

    The Supreme Court Is Putting Democracy at Risk

    In two disturbing rulings closing out the Supreme Court’s term, the court’s six-justice conservative majority, over the loud protests of its three-liberal minority, has shown itself hostile to American democracy.In one case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the court has weakened the last remaining legal tool for protecting minority voters in federal courts from a new wave of legislation seeking to suppress the vote that is emanating from Republican-controlled states. In the other, Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta, the court has laid the groundwork for lower courts to strike down campaign finance disclosure laws and laws that limit campaign contributions to federal, state and local candidates.The court is putting our democratic form of government at risk not only in these two decisions but in its overall course over the past few decades.Let’s begin with voting rights. In Brnovich, the court, in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, held that two Arizona rules — one that does not count votes for any office cast by a voter in the wrong precinct and another that prevents third-party collection of absentee ballots (sometimes pejoratively referred to by Donald Trump and his allies as ballot harvesting) — do not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.Section 2 is supposed to guarantee that minority voters have the same opportunity as other voters to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The evidence presented to the court showed that minority voters were much more likely to have their votes thrown out than white voters for out-of-precinct voting and that Native Americans — because many live on large reservations — were less likely to vote in the absence of help with ballot collection.That the conservative majority of justices on the Supreme Court found that these rules did not violate Section 2 is unsurprising. Compared to other laws making it harder to register and to vote, such as strict voter identification provisions, these were relatively tame. In fact, some voting rights lawyers were unhappy that the Democratic National Committee pushed this case aggressively; minority voters have had some success using Section 2 in the lower courts, even getting the very conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to strike down Texas’ voter ID law, one of the strictest in the nation. The concern was that the Supreme Court would mess up this track for protecting voting rights.And mess it up it did. The real significance of Brnovich is what the court says about how Section 2 applies to suppressive voting rules. Rather than focus on whether a law has a disparate impact on minority voters, as Justice Elena Kagan urged in her dissent, the court put a huge thumb on the scale in favor of restrictive state voting rules.Thanks to Brnovich, a state can now assert an interest in preventing fraud to justify a law without proving that fraud is actually a serious risk, but at the same time, minority voters have a high burden: They must show that the state has imposed more than the “usual burdens of voting.” Justice Alito specifically referred to voting laws in effect in 1982 as the benchmark, a period when early and absentee voting were scarce and registration was much more onerous in many states.It is hard to see what laws would be so burdensome that they would flunk the majority’s lax test. A ban on Sunday voting despite African American and other religious voters doing “souls to the polls” drives after church? New strict identification requirements for those voting by mail? More frequent voter purges? All would probably be OK under the court’s new test as long as there are still some opportunities for minority citizens to vote — somewhere, somehow.What’s worse, the court did not decide Brnovich in a vacuum but after two other significant decisions that undermined the fight against restrictive voting rules. In a 2008 decision, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the court again put a thumb on the scale favoring a state’s restrictive laws when it upheld Indiana’s voter identification law against an argument that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. And in the infamous 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case, the court killed off the part of the Voting Rights Act that required states and other jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to get approval before they could adopt laws that could burden minority voters.We were assured back then not to worry about the loss of this preclearance provision because there was always Section 2 to fall back on. So much for that. There are now fewer and fewer tools with which to fight suppressive voting rules in the federal courts.And Justice Alito ended with a shot across the bow for Congress, should it consider amending the Voting Rights Act to provide an easier standard for minority plaintiffs to meet, such as Justice Kagan’s disparate impact test in dissent. Such a test, he wrote, would “deprive the states of their authority to establish nondiscriminatory voting rules,” potentially in violation of the Constitution.The news on the campaign finance front is almost as dire. In the Americans for Prosperity case, the court considered a law that required charities to disclose their donors in reports filed with the government of California. The state wanted the information for law enforcement purposes, to ferret out fraud by charities, and by law, the information was not supposed to be publicly released. Unfortunately, California had leaks, and some of the information was disclosed. The groups challenging the law said compelled disclosure of their donors violated their First Amendment rights. They put forth evidence that their donors faced danger of harassment if they were revealed. The court had long held that those who face such a danger can be exempt from disclosure rules.Once again, it is unsurprising that this particular conservative majority on the Supreme Court sided with these conservative charities. And had the court said only that California’s law as applied to those facing a threat of harassment was unconstitutional, it would have been no big deal. But the majority opinion, by Chief Justice John Roberts, is much more troubling. The court held the disclosure law could not be applied to anyone, even those not facing a risk of harassment. He also rejiggered the First Amendment standards to call many other laws into question.In the Americans for Prosperity case, he redefined the “exacting scrutiny” standard to judge the constitutionality of disclosure laws so that the government must show its law is “narrowly tailored” to an important government interest. This makes it more like strict scrutiny and more likely that disclosure laws will be struck down. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, “Today’s analysis marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a bull’s-eye.”The court’s ruling calls into question a number of campaign finance disclosure laws. Perhaps even more significant, it also threatens the constitutionality of campaign contribution laws, which are judged under the “exacting scrutiny” standard, too. Lower courts can now find that such laws are not narrowly tailored to prevent corruption or its appearance or do not provide voters with valuable information — two interests the court recognized in the past to justify campaign laws. A requirement to disclose a $200 contribution? A $500 campaign contribution limit? Plaintiffs in future cases are likely to argue that laws targeting small contributions for disclosure or imposing low contribution limits are not “narrowly tailored” enough to deter corruption or give voters valuable information, even if Congress or a state or municipality found such laws necessary.And that’s a key point. As in Shelby County and in the 2010 Citizens United case, which struck down Congress’s limit on corporate campaign spending, this conservative Supreme Court in today’s rulings shows no deference to democracy-enhancing laws passed by Congress, states or local governments.Justice Kagan’s Brnovich dissent is passionate about the majority’s failure to defer to Congress’s determination that minority voters need protection. Instead, the majority showed undue deference to democracy-reducing laws passed by states and localities.If you put the Brnovich and Americans for Prosperity cases together, the court is making it easier for states to pass repressive voting laws and easier for undisclosed donors and big money to influence election outcomes.It is too much to ask for the Supreme Court to be the main protector of American democracy. But it should not be too much to ask that the court not be one of the major impediments.Richard L. Hasen (@rickhasen) is a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of “Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust and the Threat to American Democracy.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More