West Coast

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares86 Views

      in US Politics

      California set to approve Prop 50 as voters signal displeasure with Trump

      by

      California’s Proposition 50 began as a warning from the nation’s largest blue state to its largest red one: don’t poke the bear. But when Texas moved ahead with a rare, mid-decade gerrymander, pushed by Donald Trump as Republicans seek to shore up their fragile House majority in the midterm elections, California made good on its threat.Now, California voters appear poised to approve a redistricting measure placed on the ballot in August by Democrats and the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, who have cast it as a chance to check Trump’s power.“California will not sit idle as Trump and his Republican lapdogs shred our country’s democracy before our very eyes,” Newsom said at a rally, formally announcing the initiative, known as the Election Rigging Response Act.Proposition 50 asks voters to temporarily scrap the state’s independently-drawn congressional district lines in favor of new maps carved up to help Democrats win five additional safe seats – a tit-for-tat response to Texas, where Republicans secured five new, friendlier districts earlier this year.Voting has been underway for weeks in the Golden State. As of Saturday, nearly 6m ballots had been returned, about one in four of the total mailed out, according to Political Data Inc, a firm that tracks voter data. Voting ends on Tuesday, 4 November.Early returns and polling suggest the ballot measure is on track for a comfortable victory. Though it can be difficult to predict turnout in an off-year special election, several recent surveys showed it passing by more than 20 points.The focus on Trump has galavanized Democrats in the deep-blue state, averting what some initially feared: an esoteric debate about the political minutiae of redistricting, a process that until just a few months ago typically took place at the start of each decade.National Democrats lined up behind California’s retaliatory plan. Their closing ad features Barack Obama, Newsom, and prominent congressional Democrats – including New York House member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – telling voters they have the power to “stand up to Donald Trump”.“Democrats have won the messaging war in California because they’ve successfully framed it as an anti-Trump campaign,” said Dave Wasserman, the senior elections analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “Republicans just did not cobble together the resources or the momentum to stop it.”Opponents of the effort initially promised a formidable fight, but their campaigns were vastly outraised and support from national Republicans never materialized. In the final weeks, Republicans had largely retreated from the airwaves.California Republicans focused part of their attack on Newsom, denouncing the plan as a “Gavinmander” designed to help the term-limited governor build a national profile and donor base ahead of a likely 2028 presidential run. Millions of conservative voters in the state will be disenfranchised, they’ve warned, appealing to the fairness of the independent redistricting commission’s current work.California representative Kevin Kiley, a Republican whose district would be redrawn under the new maps, has called for a nationwide ban on mid-decade redistricting. The proposal has not gained traction.“What Newsom is trying to do here is to entrench even more power in the hands of a corrupt political class that has caused California to go from being the most beautiful state in the country to being the most popular state to leave,” Kiley said in an interview this week on Fox Business Network.Republicans hold just nine of the state’s 52 House seats. If successful, the gerrymander could slash the number of Republicans California sends to Washington by more than half.Former California Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Trump critic who championed the commission’s creation, harshly criticized Proposition 50. And Charles Munger, the wealthy Republican donor and longtime supporter of independent redistricting, poured more than $30m into the effort to stop California from “returning to the evils of partisan gerrymandering”.Amid the immigration raids and the federal takeover of US cities, California voters were more concerned with the stopping the Trump administration than saving their fair maps, said Mike Madrid, an anti-Trump Republican strategist advising Munger’s opposition group, the Protect Voters First committee. Madrid suspected that most people who voted for Proposition 50 hadn’t even bothered to study the new districts.“It has nothing to do with redistricting,” he said. “This is about sending a message to Donald Trump.”National good governance groups such as Common Cause, which has historically fought partisan redistricting, opted to stay neutral on California’s gerrymander.“The question was, are we going to unilaterally disarm one side?” said Virginia Kase Solomón, the CEO and president of Common Cause. Instead, the group developed a six-point “fairness” criteria, an effort to put “guardrails” on the process, which she said were reflected in the California measure.The view that politicians should not draw their own districts remains popular in California. Trump, however, is not. Nearly two in three voters agree that the president treats California “worse” than other states, according to a CBS News/YouGov survey. Among those voting for the measure, 75% said opposition to Trump was a factor in their decision.“It brings me no joy to see the maps that the commission drew being pushed aside,” said Sara Sadhwani, a professor of politics at Pomona College who served as one of the mapmaking panel’s Democratic members in 2020. “However, I do believe that in this moment, there is a greater fight that we have to wage in order to ensure a level playing field across the nation for the 2026 election.”Sadhwani appeared in one of the yes campaign’s first ads, in which she warned: “Donald Trump’s scheme to rig the next election is an emergency for our democracy”.View image in fullscreenThough Trump is at the center of the yes campaign, he was unusually muted on the ballot measure itself. Last month, he weighed in on Truth Social to preemptively discredit, without evidence, the “totally dishonest” results of Tuesday’s election.The Trump administration announced that it was deploying federal election monitors to New Jersey and California to watch the vote. In response, Newsom accused Trump of attempting to “suppress the vote” while the Democratic attorney general, Rob Bonta, said the state would dispatch its own observers to watch the federal monitors.Heading into election day, Democrats’ confidence has given the campaign an air of inevitability – so much so that Newsom, to the surprise and delight of supporters, took the unconventional step of telling them last week: “You can stop donating now.”But the yes campaign say it is taking nothing for granted. Newsom spent the final weekend before Tuesday’s special election traveling “up and down” the state, his team said, as tens of thousands of volunteers knocked doors and sent text messages reminding voters to return their ballots. “This election is not over,” the governor cautioned.Meanwhile, in an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Newsom made it a point to say he was “deeply confident” that California voters would approve Proposition 50 – and said Trump was “changing the rules” and Democrats had to adapt.“We want to go back to some semblance of normalcy, but you have to deal with the crisis at hand,” he said.In the national redistricting arms race, California remains the farthest along of any Democrat-led state to retaliate. Wasserman estimates that passage of the California ballot initiative would probably improve Democrats’ chances of winning the House majority next year by between 10% and 15%. But, with Trump having pushed Republican-led states such as Missouri and North Carolina to approve new maps and others poised to follow suit, he noted: “The problem for Democrats nationally is that they don’t have enough Californias.”As the gerrymander war escalates, supporters outside the Golden State are pleading with Californians to, in the words of their governor, “fight fire with fire”.“We’re depending on California to help a friend out, to help us out as a country,” said Texas state representative Nicole Collier, who fled the state with roughly two dozen of her Democratic colleagues to prevent a vote on the Republican gerrymander there. “The future direction of this country hangs in the balance.” More

    • 175 Shares125 Views

      in US Politics

      California is voting on redistricting. An election skeptic runs the process in one county

      by

      When Clint Curtis was appointed to oversee voting in California’s Shasta county earlier this year, the Florida-based lawyer and election skeptic pledged to “fix” the voting process.Curtis had never before administered an election and didn’t live in this rural northern California region. But he was well-known to followers of the US election denialism movement, who believe the voting system is not secure and that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election. Curtis, a former congressional candidate, described himself as an expert in elections law and had long argued that voting machines could be hacked and that the government could manipulate the results of elections.The ultra-conservative majority on Shasta county’s board of supervisors was hopeful he could overhaul their elections and set an example for the rest of the US.Now, that vision is being put to the test.On 4 November, California voters will decide on a high-stakes redistricting proposal in the first election Curtis is tasked with administering.The special election is one with particular national importance: the ballot measure proposes to suspend the work of California’s independent redistricting commission and allow the legislature to redraw congressional districts to carve out five additional Democratic seats in the US House of Representatives. The effort is a direct attempt to neutralize Texas’s partisan gerrymander, which, engineered at Trump’s behest, created several new safe Republican districts.Curtis says he’s overseeing the most transparent election in county history, with a livestream of ballot processing and a new area set aside for observers.“We’re showing people everything, which means they actually have no reason to mistrust it, because they can watch it with their own eyes,” he said.View image in fullscreenCritics say Curtis’s changes have made them distrust an election system they once felt confident in. They’re alarmed by a statement from the California secretary of state’s office that Curtis hadn’t worked with the department on his plans for the election as he had said. The county’s board of supervisors, which appointed Curtis, threatened to censure him after he stopped sharing press releases with a well-known local media outlet.They’ve raised concerns about a reduction in drop boxes all well as about several temporary staff members Curtis has hired, many of whom have been outspoken critics of the elections office and its workers, and one who even unsuccessfully sued the county after she lost a local race last year.“How is this going to increase trust in the community?” asked resident Dawn Duckett, who previously served on a county elections commission. “You [had] this vocal minority of people that [had] concerns. Now you’ve got everybody else now concerned about elections. The whole county is in a state of chaos and turmoil.”Shasta, a county of 180,000 people where Republicans outnumber Democrats more than two to one, has been attracting national attention for its far-right politics and thriving election-denier movement for years.In the wake of the 2020 election, a group of local activists convinced of widespread voter fraud waged a years-long campaign against former election officials and staff – one that resulted in many of them leaving the office.The former registrar of voters, Cathy Darling Allen, in 2022 told a US Senate committee that activists had weaponized election observation activities; that she and staff faced interference and bullying from residents who accused them of election fraud; and that record numbers of poll workers didn’t show up for work. Tensions continued to heighten and that same year, local “election integrity” activists, unaffiliated with the elections office, visited the homes of some voters while wearing gear labeled “official voter taskforce”, which Allen said at the time could amount to voter intimidation.Allen was one of a few county election officials with a national profile, said Mark Lindeman, the policy and strategy director of the non-profit Verified Voting, with a reputation for competence, knowledge of election procedure and an openness to policy conversations. But the attacks on her and the office were relentless.The activists found support from at least part of the county leadership, with some members of the board of supervisors not shy about their desire to affect change nationally by dramatically remaking voting in Shasta county. Their efforts have drawn interest from people such as MyPillow founder Mike Lindell, who has for years pushed misinformation about the integrity of voting machines. Some have claimed, without evidence and despite their own successful elections, that voting in the county has been manipulated for years.In 2023, Shasta’s governing body cut ties with Dominion Voting Systems, the voting machine company at the center of baseless conspiracy theories about election fraud, without consulting the elections office. The board of supervisors sought to implement a hand-count system that experts warned would be costly and far less accurate before the state thwarted their plans. They established an ill-fated elections commission that made recommendations, such as hand-counting ballots, that would have violated state law.View image in fullscreenWhen health issues forced Allen to retire with more than two years left in her term, the board opted to appoint a former prosecutor, Tom Toller, to the role rather than Allen’s deputy, Joanna Francescut, who had more than 16 years’ experience.He became a vocal defender of the office, stating that he never saw evidence of fraud and that the workers were talented and dedicated. But the campaign against the office continued. Laura Hobbs, a failed supervisor candidate, sued the office, claiming that an error in the placement of her name on the ballot cost her the election. A judge ultimately dismissed the lawsuit, citing a “profound” lack of evidence.Toller also resigned owing to health issues and endorsed Francescut, but earlier this year the board moved to appoint Curtis rather than the assistant elections clerk and registrar of voters. During a public interview, Curtis highlighted his appearances on the shows of Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon and his work with Mike Lindell, and said he had decades of experience in elections law. He had spent years advocating for hand-counting votes, and arguing that elections were not secure.He told the board that restoring trust in elections was personal to him, repeating an account he has shared countless times over the years – that as a computer programmer he once developed a software that could change votes. “I broke it. I better fix it,” he said.In voting to hire Curtis, the supervisor Chris Kelstrom said his appointment could “change voting not only in Shasta county but possibly the whole state and possibly the whole nation”.Curtis quickly fired Francescut, and moved to start reshaping Shasta elections.In his new role, Curtis installed additional cameras in the Shasta county elections office to capture ballot processing, removed a gate at the front and significantly reduced the number of ballot drop boxes. He hired Brent Turner, a San Francisco Bay Area-based attorney and elections reform activist who served on the board of the California Association of Voting Officials, as his deputy.“This was a very contentious place. They were fighting with the public. They were locking them behind these basically spiked walls. They locked them up. Couldn’t let [observers] see anything,” he said of the facility. (As election workers faced growing hostility from observers, the former registrar of voters, Allen, in 2023 had tall metal fencing installed in the office.)Curtis and Turner provided a tour of the office to the Guardian. The mood inside was jubilant as longtime prominent critics of the department processed ballots in the weeks before the election. State law prevents the county from hand-counting, and Curtis said his focus was on taking additional security measures.But cameras, Lindeman noted, have done little to move people who are obsessed with transparency and believe something sinister is happening.“We always see room to do things even better, but the idea that someone can just wave a wand in the great beyond and make the results something different is not factual,” he said. “And it does a real disservice to Americans to attempt to mislead them in that way.”In Curtis’s view, the office was meeting its goals in establishing an election that everyone can trust. “I’ve looked at a million elections. This is the first [that] I don’t have to sue people so that’s good,” he said. “From a lawyer’s perspective, we’re very solid.”But Curtis himself has already faced the threat of a lawsuit, accusing him of targeting a local media outlet, Shasta Scout, because of coverage he didn’t like.The outlet had published a story revealing that the secretary of state’s office said it had not approved Curtis’s plans for the election, contradicting his claims, said Annelise Pierce, the editor and founder of Shasta Scout. Turner, Curtis’s deputy, told Pierce that she was coming close to “meddling” in elections and might be engaging in election interference, Pierce said.Curtis soon excluded Shasta Scout from receiving press releases, telling the non-profit that his office only “notifies potential media outlets that appear legitimate”. The First Amendment Coalition, a non-profit advocacy group, warned Curtis that excluding Shasta Scout was a violation of the first amendment and made the county vulnerable to a lawsuit.Less than a week later, the board of supervisors voted unanimously to condemn Curtis’s actions and said it would censure him if it happened again.“The board’s vote was a real surprise to our community, because we’ve seen this board sort of play a little fast and loose with first amendment rights over the past year,” Pierce said. “And we’ve reported on that. But in this case, they really strongly supported access, and I think that’s a win for the community.”The elections office moved to publish all its press releases online in the aftermath of the incident. Turner said Shasta Scout had received “bad information” and was speaking to the wrong people in the secretary of state’s office.“Those people were giving information which was not correct, because we have been in constant conversation with the secretary of state since I’ve been here,” Turner said. (The office said that it had not approved Curtis’s plans, telling Shasta Scout: “We have not seen, nor have been provided, with any such plans.”)For his part, Curtis said the board received only one side of the story and he had reported Shasta Scout to the IRS and US Department of Justice for what he described as a questionable non-profit status. Pierce said the outlet, one of more than 500 associated with the Institute for Nonprofit News, was operating legally and its filings were up to date. She said Curtis told her that he viewed Shasta Scout as a partisan outlet, but that he declined to provide her with examples of reporting he took issue with.“We’re a non-profit news organization that believes in non-partisan reporting. We don’t take a stance on things like Prop 50 or who should be elected to office,” she said. “We respect our readers. We just try to provide them with the information that will help them to make those decisions.”At a meeting of the board of supervisors in late October, several residents said Curtis’s attack on the outlet had them on edge. So did recent changes and Curtis’s decision to hire some of the same local activists who had campaigned against the elections office and its staff for years. Among the new hires was Hobbs, the failed supervisor candidate, who filed another lawsuit against the office earlier this year.“It’s an extreme concern to me to have many election deniers basically have total access to the ballots and to the elections office,” said Steven Kohn, a local business owner who has frequently spoken to the board in support of the office. He said that he believed Shasta county has long had fair elections and that he was no longer confident in the office.View image in fullscreenCurtis said he has encouraged people of all political backgrounds to apply for jobs within the office, and that some concerned residents “just want to whine”. Turner was quick to clarify Curtis’s comments.“I think they’re rightfully nervous, because there have been issues with the systems, and people get nervous about change, but these are upgrades, security upgrades that, by the use of transparency, it shores up the system and you have to recognize that systems always can be upgraded,” he said.Bringing together critics with the office staff they used to criticize has served as a “psychological integration”, Turner said, adding that morale is high. The office has been in “consistent and ongoing” conversations with the state about the changes, Turner said, and he hopes it can serve as an example to other counties. The California secretary of state’s office said in a statement to the Guardian this week that staff visited Shasta to observe the county’s new processes, but that it had not approved any proposed plans.The saga in Shasta county stands apart from other places, said Lindeman of Verified Voting, describing Curtis as a contender for the “most clearly unqualified” elections official in the country.Lindeman expressed concern about recent comments from Curtis that logic and accuracy testing, which ensures voting equipment is fully functional, is a “waste of time”. “That’s like saying that umbrellas are a waste of time because a brick might fall on your head,” Lindeman said. “Good logic and accuracy testing is the first line of defense to help protect voters’ votes.”But Lindeman was rooting for the county, saying: “I will be hoping that Clint Curtis manages to lead a successful election for the people of Shasta county, who certainly deserve it.”Curtis has already announced his plans to run for office when his term is up, writing on his campaign website that “if politicians can gain this seat back, America will never return to real elections again”. Francescut too is running with the endorsement of other elections officials, retired sheriffs and her predecessor Toller, who wrote that her “professionalism and impartiality transformed this former election skeptic”. More

    • 263 Shares73 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats should be taking the fight to Trump – the problem is, he’s got them battling each other | Jonathan Freedland

      by

      Every year is election year in the US, but the contests of 2025, which reach their climax on Tuesday, will be especially revealing. These “off-year” battles – a smattering of governors’ races, statewide referendums and the election of a new mayor in the country’s biggest city – will tell us much about the national mood 12 months after Americans returned Donald Trump to the White House and one year before midterm contests that could reshape the US political landscape. Above all, though, they will reveal the division, the confusion and sheer discombobulation Trump has induced in the US’s party of opposition.The verdict on Trump’s first 10 months in office will be delivered most clearly in the two states set to choose a new governor: New Jersey and Virginia. By rights, these should be relatively easy wins for the Democrats. Both states voted for Kamala Harris a year ago, and the current polls are grim for Trump. This week, an Economist/YouGov survey registered Trump’s lowest rating of his second term – 39% of Americans approve of him, while 58% disapprove – the lowest number they’d recorded for him bar one poll in his first term. Trump’s handling of the economy gets especially low marks, and a plurality of voters blame the continuing government shutdown, now in its second month, on Trump and his party. If an off-year election offers an opportunity to kick an unpopular incumbent, then Tuesday should be plain sailing for Democrats.And yet, the contest in New Jersey, for one, is looking far from comfortable. Democrats there are mindful that a year ago Trump surged in the state: after losing to Biden by a whopping 16 points in 2020, he trailed Harris by just six. Current polls show the Democratic candidate for governor ahead, but only narrowly: one survey put her just one point ahead of her Republican opponent. The party is funnelling serious money into the contest and deploying its biggest guns: Barack Obama will campaign in New Jersey on Saturday.It may work. But the fact that, after all that voters have seen from Trump these past 10 months – the power grabs; the wild on-again, off-again moves on tariffs; the failure to shrink inflation; the indulgence of corruption; the vanity projects, including the demolition of the East Wing of the White House to make room for a gilded Trump ballroom – a Republican is even competitive in a state such as New Jersey should be troubling Democrats. And, if my conversations in Washington and New York this week are anything to go by, it is.The problem is that, even after a decade in which Trump has dominated US politics, Democrats are still not sure how to confront him, or even, more fundamentally, what they should really be. Take the mayoral contest in New York City, which is exposing the depth of the divide.The frontrunner is Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old newcomer who came from nowhere to storm his way to the Democratic nomination. Hugely charismatic and a master of social media, he has energised voters who had long regarded the Democrats as stale and tired: in the Democratic primary earlier this year, turnout was highest among those between ages 25 and 35. His chief opponent is the man he beat in that primary, the former Democratic governor of the state and scion of one of the party’s most storied families: Andrew Cuomo.Their clash captures what Cuomo, now running as an independent, calls the “quiet civil war” among Democrats in almost cartoonishly stark terms. Mamdani is a socialist beloved by the young, but feared by the old – and by those alarmed by his refusal to denounce the slogan “globalise the intifada”, a phrase they believe sanctions attacks on Israel-associated, meaning Jewish, targets in the US and elsewhere. Cuomo is 67, previously endorsed by the party establishment and tainted by the bullying and sexual harassment scandal that drove him out of office in 2021.It is a divide that is both ideological and generational. Plenty of younger Democrats see Mamdani as radical and inspiring, drawn to his message of “affordability” of housing and public transport. They see Cuomo as the embodiment of an exhausted, morally compromised centrism that cannot beat Trump. Meanwhile, many older Democrats see Mamdani as radical and untested, carrying too little experience and too much ideological baggage – the same leftist liabilities that the right ruthlessly exploits and ultimately always leads to Democratic defeat. I got a glimpse of that divide when, at a live event in Manhattan for the Unholy podcast, I asked Hillary Clinton whether, if she had a vote in New York City, she would cast it for Mamdani, who is, let’s not forget, the official Democratic nominee for mayor: “You know what? I don’t vote in this city. I’m not involved in it. I have not been at all even asked to be involved in it, and I have not chosen to be involved in it.”If Mamdani wins, and either of the comparatively moderate Democrats running in New Jersey and Virginia loses, then the party’s progressive wing will take that as confirmation that its approach – the path of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders – represents the party’s best hope. But if all three win, and especially if the gubernatorial candidates improve on Harris’s performance in 2024, then the moderate wing will be buoyed, and the argument inside the Democratic party will rage on. In fact, it’s a fair bet it will rage on whatever happens.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAnd that is because the age of Trump has been utterly confounding for his opponents. How do you play against a player who breaks all the rules of the game? If you stick to the old ways of doing politics, if you obey the traditional proprieties and conventions, you cast yourself as part of the very establishment or deep state or elite that Trump has so profitably railed against for 10 years. But if you don’t, if you disrespect past norms, then you become part of the problem, the danger, Trump represents, weakening the guardrails that keep democracy on track.An example of that dilemma is on display in California. The state’s ambitious governor, Gavin Newsom, has tabled a ballot initiative – a referendum – that would redraw the boundaries of California’s congressional districts to give the party about five more seats in the House of Representatives in time for next year’s midterm elections. It’s retaliation for a Trump-approved gerrymander in Texas that will hand Republicans a similar advantage in that state. Democrats have hailed Newsom’s move as an act of resistance, fighting Trumpian fire with fire. And so it is. But it also burns away one more democratic norm, turning boundary changes into a routinely partisan battleground.Democrats are struggling because there are no good options when fighting a nationalist populist unafraid to wreck democracy. If you stay high while he goes low, you lose – and he is free to wreak further destruction on the democratic system. But if you sink to his level, you risk damaging the very thing you want so desperately to protect. The havoc of Donald Trump is never confined to Trump. It engulfs his opponents too.

      Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist

      Guardian newsroom: Year One of Trumpism: Is Britain Emulating the US? On Wednesday 21 January 2026, join Jonathan Freedland, Tania Branigan and Nick Lowles as they reflect on the first year of Donald Trump’s second presidency – and to ask if Britain could be set on the same path. Book tickets here or at guardian.live More

    • 150 Shares84 Views

      in US Politics

      California: officials investigate after second shooting by ICE agents in a week

      by

      US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were involved in a shooting in southern California on Thursday, prompting a federal investigation.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a statement that ICE officers were conducting a vehicle stop in Ontario when another driver, who was not the target, approached. Officers ordered the driver to leave the area, according to the statement.“As the driver began to pull away, the car stopped and attempted to run officers over by reversing directly at them without stopping,” Tricia McLaughlin, the DHS’s assistant press secretary, said in a statement.“An ICE officer, fearing for his life, fired defensive shots at the vehicle. The subject fled the scene and abandoned his vehicle.”The shooting was the second such incident in the Los Angeles area in recent weeks. Last week, federal agents shot a Los Angeles man who livestreams US immigration enforcement operations on social media.Officials said at the time that Carlitos Ricardo Parias, a TikTok creator with a large following, attempted to ram federal agents’ vehicles after agents surrounded him and boxed in his car. Officers shot him in the elbow while a ricochet bullet hit a deputy US marshal in the hand.In Phoenix on Wednesday, an ICE officer shot at a vehicle that officials had tried to stop. The driver began to drive away and officials said the officer was in the vehicle’s path, ABC 15 reported.The shootings come as the Trump administration attempts to significantly expand its deportation operations across the US. The government is reportedly moving to overhaul ICE leadership in order increase the pace of removals.Meanwhile, conditions in ICE facilities are troubling. The Guardian reported this week that US immigration officials are increasingly holding people in small and secretive facilities for days and in some cases weeks, a violation of federal policy. At least 16 people died in ICE facilities between January and September.Deportation operations have upended communities across the US, particularly in southern California, where the fear of raids and removal has left residents on edge and in some cases fearful to leave their homes.The homeland security department said in its statement that Thursday’s shooting “was another example of the threats our ICE officers are facing day-in and day-out as they risk their lives to enforce the law and arrest criminals”.“ICE officers now face a 1,000% increase in assaults against them, including cars being used as weapons, and death threats against our agents are up 8,000%,” McLaughlin said. “Let me be clear: anyone who assaults, impedes, obstructs, or threatens the lives of federal officers will be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” More

    • 138 Shares105 Views

      in US Politics

      ICE detains British journalist after criticism of Israel on US tour

      by

      British journalist Sami Hamdi was reportedly detained on Sunday morning by federal immigration authorities at San Francisco international airport, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair) says that action is apparent retaliation for the Muslim political commentator’s criticism of Israel while touring the US.A statement from Cair said it was “a blatant affront to free speech” to detain Hamdi for criticizing Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza while he engaged on a speaking tour in the US. A Trump administration official added in a separate statement that Hamdi is facing deportation.“Our attorneys and partners are working to address this injustice,” Cair’s statement said. The statement also called on US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “to immediately account for and release Mr Hamdi”, saying his only “‘crime’ is criticizing a foreign government” that Cair accused of having “committed genocide”.The press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, wrote of Hamdi in a social media post: “This individual’s visa was revoked, and he is in ICE custody pending removal”.McLaughlin’s post also said: “Those who support terrorism and undermine American national security will not be allowed to work or visit this country.”During his tour, Hamdi spoke on Saturday at the annual gala for Cair’s chapter in Sacramento. He was expected to speak on Sunday at the gala for the Florida chapter of Cair.McLaughlin’s post about Hamdi’s detention was shared by Trump administration ally Laura Loomer, who took credit for his being taken into custody.Loomer, who has called herself a “white advocate” and a “proud Islamophobe”, has often peddled conspiracy theories such as endorsing claims that the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001 were an “inside job”.In 2018, she infamously chained herself to Twitter’s headquarters in New York City in protest of her account being banned. Billionaire businessman Elon Musk reinstated her account after he bought the social media platform in 2022.“As a direct result of … my relentless pressure on the [state department] and Department of Homeland Security, US officials have now moved to take action against Hamdi’s visa status, and his continued presence in this country,” Loomer posted on social media.Hamdi is the latest of numerous immigrants who have been arrested and deported by ICE over pro-Palestinian views. Earlier in October, journalist Mario Guevara was deported to El Salvador after having been detailed while live streaming the massive, anti-Trump No Kings protest in June.On 30 September, a federal judge appointed during Ronald Reagan’s presidency ruled the administration’s policy to detain and deport foreign scholars over pro-Palestinian views violates the US constitution and was designed to “intentionally” chill free speech rights.The ruling is bound to be appealed, possibly all the way to the US supreme court, which is dominated by a conservative supermajority made possible by three Trump appointments. The state department, meanwhile, has said it will continue revoking visas under the policy. More

    • 113 Shares87 Views

      in US Politics

      Gavin Newsom confirms he is considering 2028 presidential run

      by

      Gavin Newsom, California’s Democratic governor, told CBS News Sunday Morning he plans to make a decision on whether to run for president in 2028 once the 2026 midterm elections are over.“Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise,” Newsom said in response to a question on whether he would give serious thought to a White House bid after the 2026 elections. “I’d just be lying. And I’m not – I can’t do that.”Newsom’s term as governor ends in January 2027 and he is not able to run again due to term limits, but cautioned that a decision is years away.“Fate will determine that,” he said.The California governor has emerged as a high-profile critic of the Trump administration through his social media accounts and push of a ballot measure that would increase Democrats’ congressional seats in response to Republican redistricting efforts – a move that has made him a target for critics.Donald Trump’s secretary of transportation, Sean Duffy, accused Newsom of not caring about Californians in an interview with Fox News on Sunday as Duffy revealed plans to pull federal funds from California and threatened to revoke California’s ability to issue commercial driver’s licenses.“I’m about to pull $160m from California,” Duffy said, after US homeland security said earlier this week an undocumented semi truck driver caused a fatal crash in California that killed three people and injured four. Newsom’s office noted the federal government reauthorized the driver’s employment multiple times, which allowed him to obtain a commercial drivers license under federal law.Duffy already said he was withholding $40m from California for not enforcing English language requirements for truck drivers.“Former D-list reality star, now Secretary of Transportation, still doesn’t understand federal law,” Newsom’s office said in a statement last month in response to Duffy threatening to withhold federal funds from the state. “In the meantime, unlike this clown, we’ll stick to the facts: California commercial driver’s license holders had a fatal crash rate nearly 40% LOWER than the national average. Texas – the only state with more commercial holders – has a rate almost 50% higher than California. Facts don’t lie. The Trump administration does.”A CBS poll conducted earlier this month found 72% of Democrats and 48% of all registered voters said Newsom should run for president in 2028. Since Trump took office, Newsom’s favorability has increased to an average of 33.5% from about 30% and his unfavorability has decreased from an average of over 40% to 38.4%, according to Decision Desk HQ.Earlier this year, Newsom told CBS while on a trip to several battleground states around the US on whether he plans to run in 2028: “I have no idea.”He noted his earlier challenges in life, including being diagnosed with dyslexia at the age of five.“The idea that a guy who got 960 on his SAT, that still struggles to read scripts, that was always in the back of the classroom, the idea that you would even throw that out is, in and of itself, extraordinary,” he said. “Who the hell knows? I’m looking forward to who presents themselves in 2028 and who meets that moment. And that’s the question for the American people.” More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      How ‘screw Trump’ messaging may help California’s Proposition 50 prevail

      by

      There are many ways to characterize Proposition 50, the single ballot initiative that Californians will be voting on this election season.You could say it’s about redrawing congressional district lines outside the regular once-a-decade schedule. You could say, more precisely, that it’s about counterbalancing Republican efforts to engineer congressional seats in their favor in Texas and elsewhere with a gerrymander that favors the Democrats. You could, like the measure’s detractors, call it a partisan power grab that risks undermining 15 years of careful work to make California’s congressional elections as fair and competitive as possible.The way California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, and the Democrats are selling it to voters, though, boils down to something much simpler and more visceral: it’s an invitation to raise a middle finger to Donald Trump, a president fewer than 40% of Californians voted for and many loathe – for reasons that extend far beyond his attempts at election manipulation. For that reason alone, the yes campaign believes it is cruising to an easy victory.“There’s actually a double tease here,” said Garry South, one of California’s most experienced and most outspoken Democratic political consultants who has been cheer-leading the measure. “Trump and Texas, the state Californians love to hate. How can you lose an initiative that’s going to stick it to both?”Proposition 50, also known as the Election Rigging Response Act, proposes amending the California constitution and suspending the work of the state’s independent redistricting commission until 2031 so the Democrats can carve out five additional safe seats. That wouldn’t significantly change the power balance in California, since Democrats already occupy 43 of the state’s 52 House seats.But it would compensate for the five seats that Texas Republicans, acting on Trump’s direct urging, wrested for themselves earlier this year. “Fight fire with fire,” has been Newsom’s mantra, and several influential national figures in the Democratic party – everyone from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the prominent New York congresswoman, to former president Barack Obama – have signed on.Democrats are optimistic they will see a significant vote shift in their favor next year, because Trump’s approval ratings are already underwater in the swing states that he narrowly won last November, and in California he is polling as low as 29%.But that won’t translate into more congressional seats if district boundaries are redrawn in a way that protects vulnerable Republican incumbents and eliminates meaningful competition. According to one estimate by the Brennan Center for Justice, Republicans already have a net 16-seat advantage for themselves in House races, thanks to gerrymandering efforts across the country in the wake of the 2020 census. The Texas move increases that advantage to 21 seats. And similar, smaller-scale moves in Missouri and North Carolina bring it to 23.“Republicans want to steal enough seats in Congress to rig the next election and wield unchecked power for two more years,” Obama charges in a widely aired campaign ad that began circulating last week. “With Prop 50, you can stop Republicans in their tracks.”Polls and focus groups suggest many Californians have mixed feelings about abandoning their state’s non-partisan district maps, but a slim majority say they see the need to do so anyway and plan to vote yes on 4 November.Support for the measure has been rising steadily. Earlier this month, the yes vote was barely cracking 50% in most of the polling, and about 15% of poll respondents said they were undecided. Another 30% indicated that their support for or against was soft.Two surveys published this week, however, showed Proposition 50 passing by at least a 20-point margin and the yes vote is now up in the high 50s or low 60s. Fully three-quarters of those intending to vote yes told a CBS News poll conducted by YouGov that they were doing so to oppose Trump, just as the yes campaign has been urging.Ballot initiatives are not quite like other elections, though, especially in an off-year election likely to result in lower turnout than usual.“The history of [these] campaigns in this state shows that late-deciding voters tend to vote against initiatives,” said Dan Schnur, a former Republican campaign consultant who teaches political communications at Berkeley and the University of Southern California. “They’re expressing an inherent skepticism that arises if voters don’t know a lot about a measure. They want to guard against it making their lives worse.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe latest polling data suggests that such last-minute skepticism may not apply in this case, most likely because Trump is such a polarizing, and motivating factor. Polls consistently show higher support for Proposition 50 among so-called “high propensity” voters – those who show up at the polls time after time – and early mail-in voting returns indicate stronger than usual numbers, with registered Democrats outnumbering registered Republicans by almost a two-to-one margin.The “yes” side has outraised the “no” side and been far more visible in campaign ads and appearances. Kevin McCarthy, the former House speaker who represented a southern California district for 16 years, promised over the summer to raise $100m to defeat Proposition 50 but has managed only a tiny fraction of that – less than $6m, according to the secretary of state’s office. And the big Republican guns who might ordinarily have hit the campaign trail have been conspicuous by their absence – something that suggests to many political observers they think the fight is unwinnable.Overall, the yes campaign has outraised the no campaign by about $138m to $82m.Even the pleas of the no campaign’s most visible advocate, Arnold Schwarzenegger, have proven ineffective. According to an Emerson poll, two-thirds of voters say it makes no difference to them what Schwarzenegger thinks. As a Republican, he lacks credibility with many Democrats, and as a moderate who loathes Trump, he has little traction with the Republican base. More than 20% of voters say his advocacy actually makes them more likely to do the opposite of what he wants.The problem for the no campaign, according to South and others, is that there is no message persuasive enough to counter the visceral appeal of “screw Trump”, particularly at a time when California voters are angry about ICE raids, military deployments in US cities including Los Angeles, federal funding cuts, the destruction of the East Wing of the White House, and more.Some groups, including one led by the billionaire Charles Munger Jr that has ploughed more than $30m into the no campaign, have pushed the argument that Proposition 50 is undemocratic. But national polling has consistently shown that appeals to democracy do little to sway voters because both sides think it is at stake. Calling Proposition 50 a “power grab” merely reminds voters that Republicans in Texas grabbed power first.Other opponents, including Steve Hilton, the leading Republican candidate in next year’s governor’s race, have sought to stir voter discontent with Newsom and cast the initiative as one more distraction cooked up by a governor with national ambitions when he should be focusing on the state’s housing shortage and affordability crisis. Hilton calls Proposition 50 an “illegal and corrupt contribution to [Newsom’s as yet unannounced] presidential campaign”.That works as red meat for the Republican base. But the last time Republicans tried to turn the California electorate against Newsom in a stand-alone ballot initiative – a recall vote in 2021 – Newsom prevailed by a 62-38 margin. And Newsom’s approval numbers have only increased as a result of Proposition 50.“The no side has two problems with its core argument,” South said. “It’s too complicated, and it’s too abstract. The average voter doesn’t have a clue what their congressional lines are. And, in addition to that, they don’t care.“So the choice comes down to: you can screw Trump, or you can pay homage to a redistricting commission that voters approved in 2010 and probably don’t remember. There’s no way this thing loses.” More

    • 213 Shares161 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump was planning to send troops to San Francisco. Now he’s not. Here’s why | Joe Eskenazi

      by

      This story was published in collaboration with Mission Local.The mayor of San Francisco said on Thursday that Donald Trump had simply called him – no go-betweens or consigliere required – and told him there would no longer be a deployment of federal agents or troops to the city.The president simply dialed Daniel Lurie up and talked at him. And, just like that, a daylong crisis and flood-the-zone news cycle across the Bay Area regarding the imminent deployment of border protection agents to the region was quelled. Or not: Oakland’s mayor, Barbara Lee, said the president didn’t call her. Lurie and other local leaders are taking the president’s words to mean that the rest of the Bay Area will be spared – but there was no overt pledge regarding that.It’s great for the people of San Francisco that the president has capriciously decided to unsend the troops he capriciously decided to send. But the real story here is, per the president’s summation on social media of his discussion with Lurie, that the commander-in-chief is overtly stating that he is basing a domestic military deployment upon what local “friends of mine” (the billionaire CEOs Jensen Huang of Nvidia and the local boy Marc Benioff of Salesforce) lobbied him to do. Trump also noted that Lurie asked him “very nicely” not to establish a military beachhead in San Francisco.All for the good. But what if Huang and Benioff had been in the mood for a military parade and called for sending in the troops? What if Lurie had been less polite?If things had gone even slightly differently, it stands to reason that federal immigration agents and/or armed troops could be rolling through the city by now.There are only so many turns of phrase you can employ: this is just a profoundly fucked-up way to lead a country. It’s like dealing with King George or a warlord out of the dark Ages.This city’s billionaires are very good at some things, and those things have made them a lot of money. But being good at those things doesn’t make your average billionaire an expert on military intervention, the local drug trade or, for that matter, immigration policy or crime in the city.Speaking of capricious, Benioff was for sending in the guard before he was against it.It figures: Salesforce veterans tell me they expect Benioff would do great schmoozing in a one-on-one with the president – because their personalities are so similar.For a guy who drinks so much coffee, Daniel Lurie is remarkably even-keeled. When asked about his discussion with Trump, Lurie told the press that he simply recited all of San Francisco’s heartening crime statistics over the telephone – and kept reciting them, sprinkling in a little real estate boosterism along the way.“Everything I told you is all I said to him,” the mayor said today. “I keep repeating, and I said to him, that we are at 70-year lows when it comes to violent crimes. Tent encampments are at record lows. I spoke about more office space being leased than vacated. For the first time, retail is back. Hotel bookings are up 50%. Convention bookings are also up 50%. This is a city on the rise. And that’s what I said to him. And that’s what I say to everybody.”The president, Lurie said, “asked nothing of me”. Nobody was made to purchase Trump’s 555 California St property at an exorbitant markup. No promises to build a Trump Tower on top of Salesforce Tower were required to call off the troops. It remains unclear whether Lurie finally referred to Trump by name when on the phone with Trump. Evidently, he wasn’t asked to.I’d like to think the mayor really did say “retail is back!” to the man presently tearing down the White House to install a ballroom fit for people who feel Versailles is too understated. If he did, it worked.But nobody is expecting peace in our time: “They want to give it a ‘shot’,” Trump wrote. “Therefore we will not surge San Francisco on Saturday.”All of the things Lurie told the president – and “everybody” – are true. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: subjectively, you may not feel safe in San Francisco. Objectively, you’ve rarely been safer. San Francisco’s reported crime totals are low, and that’s something you could say before this mayor or this president. We are on pace for our lowest homicide total since 1954, but last year’s total was the lowest since 1961. Car break-ins, which were long part of the San Francisco Condition and gave us the municipal nickname “bip city” are way down.But the fact that it was true does not matter: what Huang or Benioff or other billionaire pals tell the president is what matters.The problem, however, is that parts of San Francisco still look gnarly – gnarlier, arguably, than they did in the 1970s when teams of serial killers roamed the streets. There are swaths of the city in which people are living in overt filth and misery and are overtly buying, selling and using drugs. There are still unhoused people, drug addicts and unhoused drug addicts shambling about. They may be disinclined to give you the Zodiac killer treatment, but their presence makes people uncomfortable. This makes people – including terminally online tech CEOs and venture capitalists – feel unsafe. This makes ostensibly intelligent tech barons ping the president on social media and ask him to send in the national guard.If Lurie did indeed stave off an intervention of armed soldiers or rampaging immigration agents by telling the truth, then more power to him. To paraphrase the familiar quote, honesty is one of the better policies.But the “shot” Lurie has apparently been granted was to clean up a problem he has explained – quantitatively – that we don’t have. Lurie will purportedly meet with the attorney general, Pam Bondi. But it remains to be seen whether any federal assistance from the FBI or DEA to combat drug trafficking doesn’t come with serious – and capricious – strings attached. Every bargain with Trump and his gang is a Faustian bargain.San Francisco’s crime stats have been headed the right way for a while. But our gnarliness vibes have not – so we recalled our district attorney and dumped our prior mayor. It’s not enough for Lurie to point to numbers. He has to deliver the right vibes – the kind of vibes that can appease our billionaire class and the president they call up and lobby. That’s a hard job. Get that man a cup of coffee.Retail, they say, is back. It remains to be seen whether and when federal immigration agents will be, too.

      Joe Eskenazi is an editor and columnist for Mission Local. Io Yeh Gilman and Xueer Lu contributed reporting More