Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • USC study documents what residents want from trees
    Two people are walking on a dirt hiking trail that is fenced in on both sides, with shrubs, trees and native plants lining the paths.
    Most of South Los Angeles has less greenery than other parts of L.A., with the exception of areas like Baldwin Hills' Park to Playa Trail (pictured here).

    Topline:

    A new study from researchers at the University of Southern California compiles interviews with stakeholders and community members in South L.A. about what they would like to see as trees are planted in the area.

    Why it matters: Roughly 13% of South L.A. is covered by a tree canopy compared to 23% across the rest of the city, contributing to higher temperatures, more air pollution, and reduced shade, among a host of other health and safety concerns.

    What they found: Concerns of upkeep and lack of investment came up during the interviews, as well as an appreciation for the health benefits and community value of trees. Residents also mentioned the association that tree planting has with development and gentrification of the neighborhood.

    The backstory: The aim of the study was “shifting the conversation a bit away from just ‘trees are good,’ and leaving it at that, and having a more detailed conversation about what's that going to involve,” according to lead researcher and USC professor Santina Contreras.

    What's next: The researchers stopped short of making any specific policy recommendations — especially as South L.A. is made of diverse neighborhoods that may need different approaches — but they do plan to present the findings to local planners and officials.

    It’s no secret that South L.A., like many parts of the city, faces a major equity issue when it comes to tree coverage. Roughly 13% of South L.A. is covered by a tree canopy compared to 23% across the rest of the city, contributing to higher temperatures, more air pollution, and reduced shade, among a host of other health and safety concerns.

    While the data are important to understanding the disparity, a new study from researchers at the University of Southern California tackles the issue through a different lens, compiling interviews with stakeholders and community members in South L.A. about what they would like to see as trees are planted in the area.

    “What we were really interested in is sort of coming to the table and just sort of asking people really open ended questions,” said USC urban planning professor and lead researcher Santina Contreras. “What are your needs? What are your interests? What are your priorities? What sort of challenges have you faced? What are your recommendations moving forward?”

    Not as simple as just planting trees

    As the saying goes, “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.” But when trees go into the ground without proper planning, issues like sidewalk upkeep, pruning, watering, and planting of invasive species can flare up.

    That’s why Contreras said the aim of the study was “shifting the conversation a bit away from just ‘trees are good,’ and leaving it at that, and having a more detailed conversation about what's that going to involve.”

    Residents brought up concerns regarding limited resources available for tree planting and maintenance, especially since South L.A. has historically been under-resourced in many aspects of city planning.

    “We heard lots of stories about, ‘Yes, I would like them, but, am I going to be responsible for them? Who's going to water it? You know, what's the long term plan for maintenance?’” Contreras said.

    Trees’ thorny association with other issues

    Trees were obviously the focus of the researchers’ questions, but respondents also mentioned a host of other issues facing South L.A. Researchers then followed up on the concerns as they were mentioned.

    “That's part of what's embedded in doing a really rigorous qualitative study is sort of seeing unprompted that these are things that lots of different people bring up,” Contreras said.

    Rising rents and displacement in South L.A. neighborhoods were two of the issues that respondents brought up in conjunction with tree planting.

    “I've also heard [people] say, ‘When we see white people coming in and planting trees, we know the rents are going up,’” said one participant quoted in the USC study. “So trees, on some level, represent gentrification, and gentrification means that they are going to have to leave.”

    Money doesn’t grow on trees

    Another common refrain had to do with allocation of resources to South L.A. neighborhoods overall, especially as funding and resources in the predominantly low-income region are already stretched thin.

    “We have some quotes from folks that are talking about [how] trees are a value, but also, what does that mean in terms of getting access to housing and health care and all these other sorts of issues?” Contreras said.

    Need for trees

    Respondents also highlighted the benefits of sufficient tree cover, including more water capture, improvements in mental health, opportunities for connections with neighbors, and of course, the physical health benefits and cooling effects that more trees could bring to the urban canopy.

    “That's something that I think is hopefully an important takeaway from this, really thinking about the holistic piece of how tree planting fits into planning more broadly for communities,” Contreras said.

    Many of the study’s takeaways highlighted the desire for providing more sustainable tree canopy, including issues that may be familiar to tree planters anywhere.

    “There's a strong interest in making sure that we have native species to California, as the people are very aware of all the different types of problems that we face from an environmental standpoint,” Contreras said.

    While planting too much of one sort of tree isn’t ideal for biodiversity, researchers also highlighted the positive effects it can have on neighborhood identity and sense of place.

    “People can say, ‘Hey, we're the [neighborhood of] yellow trumpet trees! We're the neighborhood of all the Hong Kong orchid trees!’” one survey respondent said. “It is beautiful. You look down a certain street, and you see all the jacarandas [that] bloom at the same time. You're like, ‘Oh, wow, what harmony!’"”

    The researchers stopped short of making any specific policy recommendations — especially as South L.A. is made of diverse neighborhoods that may need different approaches — but they do plan to present the findings to local planners and officials in order to underline the concerns of South L.A. residents and start a dialog about best practices when it comes to planting more trees.

    “It's a little more arduous, but it's more beneficial if you actually outreach and directly engage elements of the community in the tree planning, rather than having a top-down [process where] the city of Los Angeles comes through and plants trees…because you don't get the buy-in,” said another community member quoted in the report. “And you don't get the true benefit of using the trees to connect communities to make stronger, better communities.”

  • Trump executive order stands for now

    Topline:

    A federal judge has declined to temporarily block President Trump's executive order that calls for restricting voting by mail.

    The ruling: Released Thursday by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump nominee based in Washington, D.C., the ruling leaves in place — at least for now — an executive order on voting that tests the limits of the president's power under the Constitution. A separate, 2025 executive order on voting was halted by courts.
    The backstory: The latest executive order, issued March 31, calls for the Department of Homeland Security to work with the Social Security Administration to create lists of adult U.S. citizens in each state, and to send those lists to state election officials. It also calls for the U.S. Postal Service — a federal agency that's independent of a president's administration — to come up with lists of eligible voters and to only deliver mail-in ballots to people on those lists.
    What's next: The new court ruling on Trump's order comes out of the three lawsuits filed in federal court in D.C. A decision on a similar request to block provisions of the order may come out of the two Massachusetts-based lawsuits as soon as early June.

    A federal judge has declined to temporarily block President Trump's executive order that calls for restricting voting by mail.

    The ruling released Thursday by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump nominee based in Washington, D.C., leaves in place — at least for now — an executive order on voting that tests the limits of the president's power under the Constitution. A separate, 2025 executive order on voting was halted by courts.

    The latest executive order, issued March 31, calls for the Department of Homeland Security to work with the Social Security Administration to create lists of adult U.S. citizens in each state, and to send those lists to state election officials. It also calls for the U.S. Postal Service — a federal agency that's independent of a president's administration — to come up with lists of eligible voters and to only deliver mail-in ballots to people on those lists.

    "The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws. Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur. Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted," Nichols wrote about the decision not to block the order.

    Nichols' ruling comes as another federal judge is preparing to issue a ruling in the coming weeks for a similar set of lawsuits based in Boston.

    Since Trump signed the order, it's been unclear whether and how it would actually affect mail-in voting, which has been taking place for state primaries in this year's midterm election. In early May, the administration said in a court filing that federal agencies were still deliberating how to carry out the order. Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche later told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that the Justice Department is working with other agencies to "make sure" the order's goals are implemented.

    Democrats, voting rights groups and almost two dozen states, plus Washington, D.C., have filed five lawsuits challenging the order.

    They argue that Article I of the Constitution gives state legislatures and Congress — not the president — the power to set rules for federal elections. Their lawsuits also contend that Trump's order directs USPS to make rules about election mail that would overstep the mailing agency's authority.

    Trump, who himself voted by mail in Florida in March, has said he issued the order to stop illegal voting by noncitizens in federal elections, which reviews and research have found to be incredibly rare. While there are voters across the partisan divide who rely on mail-in voting, more registered Democrats than Republicans say they voted by mail in the last national election in 2024.

    The new court ruling on Trump's order comes out of the three lawsuits filed in federal court in D.C. A decision on a similar request to block provisions of the order may come out of the two Massachusetts-based lawsuits as soon as early June.

    Edited by Benjamin Swasey
    Copyright 2026 NPR

  • Sponsored message
  • New rules around interfering in state elections
    A ballot box with text on its side that reads "Official ballot box" sits on a table next to dozens of "I voted" stickers.
    A ballot box at a vote center at the Mission Valley Library in San Diego on Nov. 5, 2024.

    Topline:

    Gov. Gavin Newsom said the new law was just the first in a “mosaic” of legislation to address the “legitimate anxiety” that voters have about the safety and security of California’s elections.

    Why now: Law enforcement officers will be banned from interfering with California elections under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Wednesday, just in time for the June 2 primary election.

    What's the new law? The law, which takes effect immediately, criminalizes the act of taking cast ballots from the custody of a local election official, as gubernatorial candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco did earlier this year when he seized more than 600,000 ballots from his own county’s registrar of voters. Although Bianco claimed he was checking for proof of fraudulent voting, there was no evidence to suggest any ballots were cast improperly.

    The backstory: State lawmakers originally introduced the measure, Senate Bill 73, to guard against potential federal interference with California’s elections, given the Trump administration’s animosity toward the state and the president’s desire to keep Congress in GOP hands.

    Read on... for more on the new law.

    This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

    Law enforcement officers will be banned from interfering with California elections under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Wednesday, just in time for the June 2 primary election.

    The law, which takes effect immediately, criminalizes the act of taking cast ballots from the custody of a local election official, as gubernatorial candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco did earlier this year when he seized more than 600,000 ballots from his own county’s registrar of voters. Although Bianco claimed he was checking for proof of fraudulent voting, there was no evidence to suggest any ballots were cast improperly.

    “We have to step up, and we have to draw the line. We have to clarify the rules of engagement,” Newsom told reporters before signing the legislation. “It’s a warning to the folks out there that think they can do the bidding of the Trump administration.”

    State lawmakers originally introduced the measure, Senate Bill 73, to guard against potential federal interference with California’s elections, given the Trump administration’s animosity toward the state and the president’s desire to keep Congress in GOP hands.

    But Bianco’s decision to seize ballots turned a hypothetical threat into a real one, spurring legislators to seize the moment and rush the bill through so it could take effect before Election Day.

    The new law makes it illegal for a county registrar to surrender ballots or voting equipment to law enforcement agents such as Bianco or his deputies. Riverside County Registrar Art Tinoco would have violated the law by allowing the sheriff’s department to take the ballots, despite the search warrant they presented.

    “Voters should never wonder whether ballots were improperly handled,” said Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, one of the bill’s Democratic coauthors and a former Santa Cruz County registrar. “And law enforcement powers should never be misused in ways that jeopardize the integrity of our democratic process.”

    The law also reiterates that the attorney general, secretary of state or local county elections officials can sue any person, business or entity that takes “a package containing ballots” from an election official’s custody.

    Election and voting advocates praised the Legislature for responding quickly to what they say was an “unprecedented” act of local law enforcement seizing ballots from an elections office.

    “That never happened anywhere in the country before,” said Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation. She added that the Legislature’s decision to push for this law shows voters “they are aware that something unprecedented has taken place.”

    Legislators included safeguards in the law that allow the attorney general and secretary of state in some circumstances to override the authority of a county election official — such as if a registrar permitted armed personnel to stage near polling places.

    Those override privileges are pointed, preemptive maneuvers likely spurred by the threat of a rogue county election official such as Shasta County’s embattled registrar of voters, Clint Curtis. The self-proclaimed “elections integrity advocate” lived in Florida and had no experience administering elections before the county board of supervisors appointed him registrar in 2024.

    Lawmakers are seeking to ensure state officials are “able to override a local effort to undermine the state's rules,” Alexander said. “This is not the first time the state is being responsive to events happening in Shasta County.”

    Curtis has aligned himself with 2020 election deniers, publicly expressed skepticism about voting machines and significantly reduced the number of ballot drop boxes in the county. He faces several accusations of workplace violence and harassment, including threats to drag staffers out of his office by their hair. Curtis has denied all accusations.

    The new law also prohibits any individual from allowing any law enforcement agent to “access, disrupt, modify or take possession of” any voting technology without a court order.
    Another provision prohibits election observers from challenging voter signatures. Last fall, the U.S. Justice Department, at the request of the California GOP, announced it would send election observers to California for the special election on Proposition 50, which sparked fears that President Donald Trump was meddling in an effort to change the outcome.

    Ballot seizure is just one way outside actors could interfere with California’s elections, Alexander said. Another is the state’s lengthy ballot counting process, which has fueled conspiracy theories and baseless claims that the results should not be trusted.

    Advocates are pushing Newsom to include about $55 million in the state budget for county election offices to buy new equipment and hire more staff to speed up counting.

    Newsom told reporters Wednesday that funding negotiations are “very, very positive” and “we’re going to land on a number very, very shortly.”

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

  • Trump's proposal is controversial and costly

    Topline:

    President Donald Trump has called for a temporary waiver of the federal gas tax, which costs drivers 18.4 cents per gallon.

    Why now: It's one of several attempts to relieve pain at the pump as voters grow increasingly frustrated with gasoline prices, which have hit four-year highs thanks to the oil trade disruption triggered by the war with Iran.
    What's next: A national gas tax holiday would require an act of Congress. Lawmakers have floated the idea, with several bills introduced before Trump called for a temporary pause on the tax. Even with the president's backing, it's not clear whether his proposal will make it to the floor for a vote.

    Why it's controversial: Advocates argue they provide quick relief and with critics denounce them as costly and even counterproductive. And keep in mind that state taxes are usually much higher than the federal tax. The amount varies by state — from 9 cents a gallon in Alaska to 70.9 cents in California. On average, states tack on an extra 33.3 cents per gallon.

    President Donald Trump has called for a temporary waiver of the federal gas tax, which costs drivers 18.4 cents per gallon.

    It's one of several attempts to relieve pain at the pump as voters grow increasingly frustrated with gasoline prices, which have hit four-year highs thanks to the oil trade disruption triggered by the war with Iran.

    A national gas tax holiday would require an act of Congress. Lawmakers have floated the idea, with several bills introduced before Trump called for a temporary pause on the tax.

    But even with the president's backing, it's not clear whether his proposal will make it to the floor for a vote. Gas tax holidays are controversial, with advocates arguing they provide quick relief and with critics denouncing them as costly and even counterproductive.

    Here's what you need to know.

    How much would a federal gas tax holiday save? 

    At most, waiving the tax would save drivers 18.4 cents per gallon, or $2.76 on a 15-gallon fill-up. The national average price for a gallon of gasoline is now $4.46, up from around $3 prewar, so the relief would make up for only a fraction of that price spike.

    Loading...

    But there are two reasons that drivers might save even less. First, some of the tax savings might instead go toward refineries and gas stations. That's especially true for a shorter holiday, says Kent Smetters, the faculty director at the Penn Wharton Budget Model, which researches the cost of public policies.

    "What we generally think is that over long periods of time, most of the tax cut would go to consumers," he says. "But over shorter periods of time, suppliers — even though it's fairly competitive to sell gas — they still have some market power." And that market power means they could hike their prices a little bit, eating into those tax savings and keeping some of the benefit for themselves.

    Penn Wharton estimates that about 13.2 cents a gallon in savings would actually reach consumers; Adam Hoffer, the director of excise tax policy at the Tax Foundation think tank, estimates it's about 16 cents.

    And second, waiving the gas tax can increase demand for gasoline; that's the natural result of lower prices. That could worsen the supply-demand imbalance that's driving prices up.

    A pause on the federal gas tax alone probably isn't large enough to send demand soaring. But Patrick De Haan, an analyst with the app GasBuddy, told NPR this spring that if states widely suspend their own gas taxes, that could push demand — and prices — back up.

    That's because state taxes are usually much higher than the federal tax. The amount varies by state — from 9 cents a gallon in Alaska to 70.9 cents in California. On average, states tack on an extra 33.3 cents per gallon.

    A handful of states have already cut or paused their gas taxes. Kentucky lopped 10 cents off in May. Georgia completely froze its gas tax in March for two months and has extended its freeze as the conflict with Iran continues.

    The price of a gas tax pause

    While waiving gas taxes may save drivers a bit at the pump, it means less money for keeping roads safe.

    Revenue from the federal gas tax goes into the Highway Trust Fund, which is used to pay for interstate construction and repair, as well as to invest in mass transit. Revenue from state gas taxes is often used for local road repairs.

    The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated that when Georgia paused its tax for two months, this cost the state about $361 million.

    "Now we're talking real money," Smetters said.

    That's less funding available to the state for repairs. "Anytime you take away a source of funding for highway construction and maintenance, then you're running the risk of the roads getting worse and not better," said Rob Bhatt, an insurance analyst at LendingTree, which recently issued a report about the condition of U.S. roads.

    Drivers feel the pain of poorly maintained roads in very familiar ways: in potholes and dips. Patrick Marshall, a music teacher in New Orleans, wasn't watching close enough one morning and hit a dip that nearly broke a wheel off his 1989 GMC Sierra. The incident cost Marshall $2,500 and resulted in a 10-block walk to work.

    "It's a tough hit to take when it's an unexpected expense," Marshall said.

    (Well, not that unexpected — at least not in a city infamous for rough roads. When Marshall leads his students on brass and drum lines through New Orleans' streets, they know to shout warnings of "Pothole!" loud enough to eclipse the trumpets and French horns.)

    All those pothole-related damages add up: AAA estimated that damage from potholes cost drivers some $26.5 billion in repairs in 2021.

    Overall, this month's LendingTree report, which was based on federal data from 2024, found that 8.9% of the nation's road miles are in poor condition. Rhode Island scored the worst, with 31.5% of road miles rated as poor, with California and Massachusetts coming in second and third at 27.0% and 24.5%, respectively.

    Minnesota stood out as the most improved between 2019 and 2024 — the state reduced the share of road miles rated as poor by more than 60%. But nationally, the report didn't find much improvement at all over that five-year span.

    And even drivers in Rhode Island, the report's lowest-rated state, say potholes are bad everywhere. "I hit a pothole in New York City about a month ago, though that literally took life out of me," said Rhode Island resident Carleen Quattrucci.

    The bigger problem: The gas tax is broken 

    Here's even more bad news: The federal gas tax hasn't collected enough money to fully fund highway construction and repairs for years. And that fundamental problem is only getting worse.

    It wasn't always like this. The gas tax was based on the premise that the people who use highways the most should pay the most for their upkeep. And the more miles a driver puts on their car, the more gasoline or diesel they purchase, so the more tax they pay — no toll booth required.

    From the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s, that worked well, says the Tax Foundation's Hoffer.

    "The revenue from gas tax collections was sufficient to cover all federal highway road construction and maintenance expenses," he says. "So the drivers were paying for the roads to be maintained and more roads to be built, when they drove on the roads. It was a terrific system."

    But the last time the gas tax was raised was in 1993. It was 18.4 cents a gallon then; it's 18.4 cents a gallon now.

    Yet since 1993, the cost of road repairs and construction has risen — and the price of gasoline has tripled.

    "It's a weird tax," says Smetters, because it's not pegged to the price of gasoline, so it doesn't rise with inflation.

    Meanwhile, new vehicles have gotten more fuel efficient, and per capita miles driven per year peaked 20 years ago. That means the government collects less and less with the gas tax.

    Now, the tax falls short of the highway fund's needs every year. For 2026, the shortfall is estimated to be $17 billion. Congress has to keep making up the gap with general taxpayer funds.

    Raising the federal tax wouldn't fix the problem for long 

    Hypothetically, the national tax could be increased. After all, many states' gas taxes are set to raise automatically.

    One problem: "Nobody likes gas taxes. Politicians don't like them. Drivers don't like them. Voters don't like them," Hoffer says. "So increasing these taxes is a real political challenge." That's even though higher gas taxes do have benefits. For example, by discouraging driving, they cut down on carbon emissions, which improves air quality and human health. And a well-designed gas tax is a fairer way of paying for highways than drawing from the general tax pool, Hoffer says.

    But there's another problem: Gas taxes make less sense as more drivers choose electric vehicles. EVs use roads and highways, so they add to the wear and tear on infrastructure. But they don't burn gasoline. So as EVs make up a growing share of vehicles, even a significantly higher gas tax would be doomed. It would bring in less money over time, because fewer drivers would pay it.

    Many states have imposed EV registration fees to address this problem; the federal government is also considering adding one. However, because EVs still make up a very small share of vehicles, this doesn't come close to addressing the gas tax shortfall. Also, in many cases the fee for EVs is — or would be — much higher than the typical driver pays in gas taxes, creating an unfair system. Other potential solutions are being debated too. A lobbying group representing major automakers is pushing for a fee that all car owners would pay based on vehicle weight, so trucks would pay more than sedans. Heavier vehicles are harder on roads.

    Some states are experimenting with road-user fees, which drivers pay based on how many miles they drive. In some cases, the programs use odometer readings; in others, they rely on devices or phone apps to measure miles driven. While economists say they're a fairer way to collect revenue — because, like with a gas tax traditionally, the people who use roads the most contribute the most toward their upkeep — those plans can raise privacy concerns, depending on the technology used to track miles driven.

    Smetters, of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, also points to congestion fees and toll lanes as alternative funding mechanisms.

    None of these ideas has yet caught on as a replacement for the federal fuel tax. But one thing is clear: At some point down the road, this tax is going to run out of gas.
    Copyright 2026 NPR

  • These cafe bars and jazz clubs are worth a visit.
    Esperanza Spalding, a Black woman wearing a black dress, sings and plays guitar on stage with curtains draped behind her and a male guitarist playing in the background to her right.
    Esperanza Spalding performs at the Blue Note Jazz Club on February 23, 2025 in New York City.

    Topline:

    In Los Angeles, you don’t need to go to a big venue to catch live music. If you’re new to L.A., here’s a list to get you started.

    What it matters: L.A. is home to some big venues, but you can find good music at the smaller, but just as iconic, spots.

    Read on … for some good spots to listen to live music.

    In Los Angeles, you don’t need to go to a big venue to catch live music. Like art, music is everywhere throughout the region, so there’s something for everyone. Here’s a list to get you started.

    Two men playing guitar face eachother.
    Baked Potato is a cozy jazz club that hosts different artists on any given night.
    (
    Ken Hively/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
    /
    Los Angeles Times
    )

    Baked Potato

    The Baked Potato is an iconic spot where you can catch live jazz performances in a very intimate setting with drinks, and yes, a baked potato. What makes this place even more special is that phones are not allowed, meaning everyone is living in the moment and enjoying the music.

    Where to go: 3787 Cahuenga Blvd., Studio City
    Check out the shows here.

    A Black man in an indigo colored outfit plays the saxophone into a microphone as other band members play their instruments behind him.
    Kamasi Washington performs with special guest Ami Taf Ra in concert at Blue Note Jazz Club in New York City.
    (
    Udo Salters Photography
    /
    Getty Images
    )

    Blue Note

    The Blue Note brings New York’s iconic jazz scene to Hollywood with a bar and menu to match the vibes. It’s open seating, meaning you get a show and get to mingle with other jazz music lovers.

    Where to find: 6372 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles
    Check out the shows here.

    A black Troubadour sign below a marquee reading "SAVE OUR STAGES," above a bright graffiti mural.
    The Troubadour as its marquee asked for pandemic era help.
    (
    Courtesy Jason Horton
    )

    The Troubadour

    For more of an indie-rock feel, head to The Troubadour in West Hollywood. It’s a local classic that’s hosted some of music’s legends like Joni Mitchell, Led Zeppelin, Billy Joel, and many, many more. It’s standing-room only, with limited seating upstairs that is first-come, first-served.

    Where to find:  9081 Santa Monica Blvd., West Hollywood
    Check out the shows here.

    Café Tondo

    At Café Tondo, a cafe-bar in Chinatown, you can catch bolero performances on Tuesday nights, different DJs every Saturday night and jazz on Sunday nights. You can find more info on Café Tondo’s Instagram.

    Where to find: 1135 N. Alameda St., Los Angeles
    Find more information here.

    A light-skinned man wearing a blue and white polka dot button up stands behind a DJ set. A large speaker is set up behind him.
    Eastside Luv Wine Bar in Boyle Heights plays different kinds of music on any given night, like mariachi, country and norteños.
    (
    Lawrence K. Ho/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
    /
    Los Angeles Times
    )

    Eastside Luv

    Eastside Luv is another must-see in the heart of Boyle Heights. It’s a cozy community spot where every night holds something different, from boleros and mariachi to norteños and country. The DJ at the 21+ bar also mixes songs throughout the night in both English and Spanish.

    Where to Find: 1835 1st St., Los Angeles
    Check out the shows here.