The everything race
Why it matters: Republicans and Democrats are both eyeing $100 million campaigns to convince Californians to approve (or block) a mid-cycle redistricting change.
💪 Control of the House is potentially at stake.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, brimming with presidential energy, has gone all-in, vowing to use his state as a blue wall against President Trump's mid-cycle meddling.
He has promised to reveal proposed maps that would add up to five Democratic seats — and make just as many battleground districts safe territory for Dems.
"We anticipate these maps will completely neuter and neutralize what is happening in Texas," Newsom said, referencing the special session where Texas Republicans plan to add five House Republican seats.
Zoom in: Democrats have been privately discussing their own $100 million dollar campaign for the ballot initiative, which will require voters to amend the state's constitution, according to people familiar with the matter.
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is trying to raise $100 million to oppose the change, Politico reported today.
McCarthy will get some muscle from former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed nonpartisan redistricting.
Arnold posted a pic today where he's wearing a "F*** the politicians. Terminate gerrymander" t-shirt while working out.
Between the lines: Democrats privately like their donor pitch better.
If Republicans win the ballot initiative, they will save five incumbents — or at least give them a fighting chance in 2026 and beyond.
But if Democrats prevail, they can flip those five GOP seats and use Newsom's redistricting wand to protect up to another five seats, currently in Democratic control.
That means the party won't have to spend millions to defend those five seats for the next three cycles.
The bottom line: California is typically a fount of big dollar donations. This year it will become a sink.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
5 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Why congressional stock-trade ban efforts are about to heat up
Get ready to hear a lot more about banning congressional stock trading. A top Trump administration official says he's going to start pushing for a ban. Two House Republicans are, in different ways, gearing up to force a vote on the issue. And all the while, lawmakers keep failing to report millions of dollars' worth of stock trades on time. "We've got to move," Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas said on Fox Business earlier this month, saying that while he had given House GOP leadership "grace" as they worked to get the "Big Beautiful Bill" through Congress, that time is now over. "I'm going to demand that we vote on this, this fall." It all comes after an explosive Senate hearing on a stock trading bill last month, where Republicans went after one another over whether President Donald Trump himself should be banned from trading stocks. That led to Trump branding Sen. Josh Hawley as "second-tier," though the Missouri Republican later told BI that he was able to smooth things over with Trump later. "He told me he wants a stock trading ban," Hawley said in July. "He remains committed to getting a stock trading ban, so we'll work with him to do that." Potential House drama over a 'discharge petition' Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican known for challenging her own party's leadership, has said she'll start the process of forcing a vote on a stock trading ban when lawmakers return from the August recess. "I won't sit idly by while members of Congress trade stocks, especially those on committees with direct influence over relevant industries," Luna wrote on X last month. "That's corruption at its core, and it needs to stop." Luna has said she'll try to use what's known as a "discharge petition" to bring up a stock trading ban bill authored by Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee. Under that process, the bill would have to be brought to the House floor for a vote — with or without the support of House leaders — if Luna is able to collect signatures from 218 members, a majority of the 435 seats in the House. Not everyone who supports a stock trading ban is on board with Luna's approach. Roy, the co-sponsor of a different stock trading ban bill that has bipartisan support and has been around for years, told Fox Business that a discharge petition is "not the best way" to get it done. "I want the speaker, and Republicans, to control this," said Roy. "Republicans need to control the floor, do our job, bring this to a vote." Roy has been working with a bipartisan group that includes Democratic Reps. Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to put forward a consensus stock trading ban bill. But after months of discussions, they have yet to release legislative text. That's led Luna to largely dismiss their effort. "Allegedly, there were 'talks' happening? With who?" Luna wrote on X on Thursday. "They were never going to bring a VOTE to the floor. I don't care if this upsets people." The Florida congresswoman's effort is worth taking seriously: she has used this legislative tool before to bring up a bill on proxy voting over the objections of Speaker Mike Johnson, bringing the House to a halt for a full week in April. Lawmakers keep reporting trades late Johnson has said he's supportive of a stock trading ban — though he has "sympathy" for arguments against it. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries began forcefully supporting it this year in the wake of well-timed tariff trades by some lawmakers. Even Trump has backed it, though some Republicans are wary of applying the bill's restrictions to him. This week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent got in on the action, saying he himself would begin pushing for a ban on lawmakers trading individual stocks. "I don't think we have the perfect bill yet," Bessent told Bloomberg this week. "But I am going to start pushing for a single-stock trading ban." Meanwhile, several lawmakers in have been found in violation of the STOCK Act in recent weeks, disclosing millions of dollars worth of trades long after the 30-45 day deadline for doing so. Rep. Lisa McClain of Michigan, the fourth-highest ranking House Republican, was late to disclose over 500 trades made by her husband from March 2024 through June 2025, totalling at least $1.5 million. Republican Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania failed to disclose that his wife sold between $750,000 and $1.5 million in NVIDIA stock last year. And Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma was late in disclosing millions of dollars made by him and his wife since 2023. Lawmakers are only required to disclose asset ranges on their reports, so we don't know the exact value of the trades. Those lawmakers and their spokespeople blamed errors made by third-party financial managers and lack of awareness of the trades for the late disclosures. A spokesperson for McClain told BI that the congresswoman "promptly filed the necessary paperwork immediately after being made aware of the transactions made in managed accounts and remains committed to transparency and adherence to all House financial disclosure rules and regulations." "I take compliance with all House rules seriously and expect the same from those managing my accounts," Meuser told BI through a spokesperson. "This was a simple, automatic filing that should have occurred without error. The mistake was made solely by my brokerage and benefited me in no way." Mullin's office did not respond to BI's request for comment, but a spokesperson told NOTUS that the senator doesn't trade himself, but relies on a third-party broker.
CNN
35 minutes ago
- CNN
How a unique California law puts the Menendez brothers' fate into the hands of one politician
After serving several decades in prison, Erik and Lyle Menendez are facing the possibility of freedom as the California Board of Parole Hearings this week considers whether they've adequately atoned for the 1989 murder of their parents. While this may seem like the final moment in the long and captivating saga, refueled by several attempts by the brothers' lawyers and the former district attorney to achieve what they say is a more modern version of justice, the brothers have one more potential roadblock – California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The governor holds an unusual power that allows him to 'affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the parole authority on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider' for someone convicted of murder and sentenced to an indeterminate term, according to state law. While the governor is required to follow certain parameters, he is given broad oversight on the decision. The little-known and rare ability, established in the 1980s, looms large over the brothers as they prepare to explain to a parole panel why they should be released. It's not clear how Newsom is leaning, and his office did not answer a question from CNN about his potential decision, but here's what we know about the power that gives him ultimate authority to decide on the brothers' freedom. The governor's ability to veto the parole board's decision dates to the 1980s, when public reaction toward a now-forgotten case grabbed headlines – as well as the attention of voters. William Archie Fain, convicted of the 1967 killing of a teenage boy and rape of two teenage girls, was released on parole in 1983 to much outrage from the public, according to the Los Angeles Times. After getting parole, he continued to be accused and found guilty of other crimes, ranging from assault to peeping. Then-Gov. George Deukmejian tried to prevent his release, but state courts ruled Fain had to be freed. In response, the California legislature passed Proposition 89, which gave voters the option to allow the governor power to modify the parole board's decision. While there were concerns it would unjustly give a politician too much power, many were more worried about the potential for violence during a tough-on-crime era. 'Proposition 89 will not politicize the parole process, but it will provide an extra measure of safety to law-abiding citizens by giving the Governor the authority to block the parole of criminals who still pose a significant threat to society,' Deukmejian and a state senator wrote in a 1988 voter information guide arguing for the proposition. 'Prop 89 will correct a weakness in the state's parole system and further strengthen California's system of justice.' The proposition ended up passing with 55% of the vote, according to the UC Law San Francisco Repository. The only other state that gives its governor the power to veto parole grants is Oklahoma, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. The proposition does limit the window of reversal to 30 days, meaning if the parole board votes to release the brothers, Newsom has 30 days from when the decision is released to change it. Since the proposition's passing, the power bestowed on the California governor has been curbed slightly by court rulings over the past two decades, said Christopher Hawthorne, clinical professor of law and director of the Juvenile Innocence & Fair Sentencing Clinic at Loyola Law School. In one, the California Supreme Court ruled the governor must reasonably assess the defendant's risk against public safety, Hawthorne said. Another ruling several years later allowed the governor to consider whether the defendant had insight into their crime, he added. While the power has been modified, the governor still has room to a make a decision in the Menendez case as long as it follows these guidelines. Since the proposition was added to the California state constitution, governors have often used it to deny parole in cases during the 1990s and early 2000s, when tough-on-crime policies were more popular, according to Hawthorne. 'In the mid-'80s, California passed law after law after law, frequently by initiative, that made it much harder to get anyone out of prison. And that flow only reversed in about 2012 or 2013 when Gov. (Jerry) Brown was in office,' he said. 'For a long, long time, it was almost impossible to get parole, get found suitable for parole, and if you did get found suitable, the governor reversed a lot of parole grants at that time.' Hawthorne cited the case of Leslie Van Houten, a former Charles Manson follower and convicted murderer, as an illustration of when governors repeatedly denied parole despite the board approving it. Newsom also denied parole for Sirhan Sirhan, who assassinated US Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, with the governor citing Sirhan's 'refusal to accept responsibility for his crime' and 'lack of insight and accountability,' among other reasons. 'He does not understand, let alone have the skills to manage, the complex risks of his self-created notoriety. He cannot be safely released from prison because he has not mitigated his risk of fomenting further political violence,' Newsom wrote in a 2022 Los Angeles Times op-ed explaining his decision. 'Every governor is fairly allergic to releasing high-profile defendants,' Hawthorne said, though 'California has done really well in the last 10 years or so' in increasing the availability of parole overall. 'It was something that was not available, essentially, during the (Pete) Wilson, (Gray) Davis or (Arnold) Schwarzenegger administration, with very, very few exceptions,' he said. The three governors served successively from 1991, but starting in 2011, 'Jerry Brown's administration and Gavin Newsom's administration have done infinitely better,' he said. While the Menendez brothers have some elements working in their favor, such as family and public support, as well as encouraging recommendations from prison and corrections officials, some have passionately argued against their release. Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman hotly contested their potential resentencing earlier this year, despite his predecessor, George Gascón, requesting it. The previous district attorney, Hochman said in a statement, 'did not examine or consider whether the Menendez brothers have exhibited full insight and taken complete responsibility for their crimes.' His statement also cites the two points Newsom can consider in a potential reversal of a parole board decision. To help make his case, Hochman created a chart comparing factors considered by the parole board for Sirhan and each Menendez brother. Some of the factors include time served in prison, their education level before and during incarceration, and the gravity of the offense. Since Newsom denied Sirhan's parole based on the factors laid out in the chart, Hochman argued, the Menendez brothers definitely don't qualify for release as the they have more prison rules violations and haven't exhibited full insight into their crimes. Hochman has said the brothers lied when they claimed the motive for killing their parents was due to abuse they faced from their father. He has previously said he believes evidence to corroborate the abuse allegations is 'extremely lacking;' earlier this year he said his review of the case showed the killings were premeditated and not the result of a threat from their parents. Although a judge ultimately ruled to resentence the brothers earlier this year – which is why they now have a parole hearing – the positions taken by Hochman's office could still factor into the governor's decision on parole. The situation is definitely a 'political hot potato,' Hawthorne said, though the overwhelming support for release from family members could heavily weigh the decision. More than 20 Menendez relatives have banded together over the past year to advocate for release, saying they believe the brothers' abuse claims and that society's understanding of childhood sexual abuse has changed dramatically since their conviction in 1996. They also say the brothers have grown and tried to help others through rehabilitative programs in prison. Anamaria Baralt, a cousin of the Menendez brothers and leader of the coalition, told reporters last October that 'If Lyle and Erik's case were heard today, with the understanding we now have about abuse and PTSD, there is no doubt in my mind that their sentencing would have been very different.' She also read a statement from Terry Baralt, Jose Menendez's sister: 'I implore the district attorney's office to end our prolonged suffering and release Lyle and Erik back to our family. Thirty-five years is such a long time. My prayer is that I live long enough to see my nephews again and to hug them once more.' Oftentimes, a victim's family opposes release, Hawthorne said, making this a unique situation. 'It's interesting in this case, given that Jose and Kitty Menendez's family are largely in favor of both Eric and Lyle getting out – those voices will matter, and they will be brought to bear in that 30-day window when the governor has the case,' he said. The family will be able to express their opinions to the governor's office through calls, letters and other documents, in an attempt to sway his opinion. 'I can't think of a governor who wouldn't be sensitive to that,' Hawthorne said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Redistricting California: Newly proposed congressional maps released
The Brief The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has submitted a proposed map of California's redrawn congressional districts. The move by Newsom, and state Democrats, counters similar efforts underway in Texas. The new maps will likely be decided by California voters in a Nov. 4 special election. LOS ANGELES - A day after Gov. Gavin Newsom announced plans to redraw California's congressional districts, in response to a similar attempt by Republicans in Texas, a proposed map of the new districts was released. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee submitted the following congressional map to the California state legislature for consideration. Key points and differences Below is a breakdown of the key points of the new map from the DCCC. The submitted map is consistent with criteria laid out by the California's Citizen Redistricting Commission. It keeps districts more compact than in the current Commission-drawn map, which helps to keep more communities and neighborhoods together. It splits fewer cities than the current map (57 in submitted map versus 60 in current map). It minimizes changes to the 2020 Commission map to impact as few residents as possible. The submitted map leaves 8 districts untouched and, in 20 districts, fewer than 10% of residents are impacted. Communities of interest are protected, with necessary splits in San Jose, Sacramento, and Los Angeles (all cities that were split by the commission) done so along neighborhood boundaries and/or city council district lines. View the newly proposed congressional maps here View the current congressional maps here What they're saying "We will not stand by as Republicans attempt to rig the election in their favor and choose their voters. It's increasingly clear that Republicans will do anything to protect their narrow majority because they know they can't win on their disastrous legislative record which has raised costs and rips away healthcare for millions, all to give the ultra-wealthy a tax break," DCCC Executive Director Julie Merz said in a statement. The new map will be put forth to voters in a special election, with the California legislature set to take up the issue next week to call a Nov. 4 vote. PREVIOUS COVERAGE:Newsom unveils plan for redistricting California According to Politico, if the redistricting happens, three seats that are currently considered 'safe Republican' would change to 'safe Democratic' and one more would switch to 'lean Democratic'. Those seats currently belong to Republicans Doug Lamalfa, Ken Calvert, Darrell Issa, and Kevin Kiley. Reason for redistricting The backstory The move to redistrict California is a direct response to a Republican-led effort in Texas, pushed by President Donald Trump, as his party seeks to maintain its slim House majority after the midterm election. Texas lawmakers are considering a new map that would help them send five more Republicans to Washington, but Democrats have so far halted a vote by leaving the state to prevent their GOP colleagues from meeting Trump's demands. "We can't stand back and watch this amok or this bankruptcy disappear. We can't stand back and watch this democracy disappear, district by district, all across this country, not just in Texas, but in Missouri, where J.D. Vance went just a week ago in Indiana, in places like Ohio and places like Florida. We need to stand up, not just California. Other blue states need to stand up," Newsom said during a press conference Thursday in Los Angeles. There are 435 seats in the U.S. House and Republicans currently hold a 219-212 majority, with four vacancies. New maps are typically drawn once a decade after the census is conducted. Many states give legislators the power to draw maps but some, like California, rely on an independent commission that is supposed to be nonpartisan. California Democrats already hold 43 of the state's 52 House seats, and the state has some of the most competitive House seats. The Source Information for this story came from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and previous FOX 11 reports.
