Your sustaining gift is matched 3X today!

Make a monthly gift during our June member drive to power our local newsroom.
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
  • How much did the cellphone policy cost?
    A hand places a phone into a box with slits for the phones to fit into them.
    A Venice High School staff member stores a student’s phone as they arrive to campus in the morning.

    Topline:

    After the Los Angeles Unified School District adopted a landmark policy to get cellphones out of classrooms last year, California and more than two dozen states followed suit. But how the district spent $7 million to do so remains unclear, despite LAist’s repeated requests for the district to provide its accounting.

    The backstory:  The LAUSD Board voted in June 2024 to expand the district’s existing student phone ban to include lunch and passing periods. The district set aside $7 million for schools to purchase pouches, lockers or other devices to store phones. LAist first asked for details about how the millions of dollars allocated was spent about a week before the ban was set to take effect in February.

    The district’s response: A district spokesperson said in a Feb. 18 statement that about half of schools chose to purchase magnetic pouches, or other devices to enforce the ban. The spokesperson said additional details requested by LAist at that time, including a cost breakdown, were the responsibility of staff members busy managing the district’s response to rainstorms hitting Southern California that month.

    Why it matters: The lack of disclosure makes it unclear how much the district has actually spent on the policy change. The expected cost of implementing the cellphone policy represents .04% of the district’s $18.4 billion budget last school year.

    Read on… for other public records challenges involving LAUSD.

    After the Los Angeles Unified School District adopted a landmark policy to get cellphones out of classrooms last year, California and more than two dozen states followed suit. But how the district spent up to $7 million to do so remains unclear, despite LAist’s repeated requests for the district to provide its accounting.

    LAist first asked for details about how the millions of allocated dollars were spent about a week before the ban was set to take effect in February.

    A district spokesperson said in a Feb. 18 statement that about half of schools chose to purchase magnetic pouches or other devices to enforce the ban. The remaining schools planned to use the cost-free “honor system” and require students to keep their phones turned off in their backpacks.

    The spokesperson said additional details requested by LAist at that time, including a cost breakdown, were the responsibility of staff members busy managing the district’s response to rainstorms hitting Southern California that month.

    In the months since, LAist made five follow-up requests asking district officials to provide the public records requested. The district has yet to provide details on how millions in taxpayer money earmarked for the cellphone ban were allocated.

    How LAUSD joined the cellphone ban movement

    The district’s June 2024 adoption of the cellphone ban made national headlines. Three months later, California passed a law that requires all school districts to enact policies to limit student cellphone use by July 2026. As of July 2025, at least 30 states have approved similar measures.

    While there was growing consensus that cellphones should be put away during school hours, how to do it was not settled in the LAUSD mandate.

    Instead, schools were expected to come up with their own rollout plan based on community input. If the schools wanted to purchase locking magnetic or Velcro pouches, lockers or other devices they were instructed to submit their orders to the district’s Division of School Operations.

    LAUSD educators told the school board and LAist it’d become a burden to constantly tell students to stow their phones, earbuds, smartwatches and other devices during the day.

    “The time I have spent policing phone use could have been better spent on helping students recover from COVID learning loss through reading, essay writing and group projects,” Malinda Marcus, an English teacher at Mulholland Middle School’s robotics magnet program, told the board in June 2024 as the issue was debated.

    Why does this money matter?

    Ultimately, the district budgeted for a one-time allocation of $7 million to implement the policy, which represents just .04% of the district’s $18.4 billion budget last school year. How LAUSD managed its cellphone funds could inform the many other districts looking to implement a similar ban, and help the public better understand the return on investment.

    Listen 46:11
    On February 18th, 2025, the Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest public school district in the country, implemented an all-day cell phone ban for its students. Now that it’s the end of the school year, we head to Venice High School to see how the ban actually went.

    On February 18th, 2025, the Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest public school district in the country, implemented an all-day cell phone ban for its students. Now that it’s the end of the school year, we head to Venice High School to see how the ban actually went.

    The cellphone policy spending comes at a time of declining enrollment, diminishing reserves and uncertain federal funding.

    In June, LAUSD’s board approved a plan to cut costs, including through potential school closures and layoffs, in the 2026-27 and 2027-28 school years.

    Hard choices are needed under a state law that requires districts to create a “fiscal stabilization plan” when they are spending more money than they bring in and are at risk of not being able to meet their financial obligations within three years.

    The details of our records requests

    Californians have the right to access records about “the conduct of the people’s business.

    California public records law directs agencies to “make the records promptly available,” including being “open to inspection at all times during the office hours of a state or local agency.”

    After our initial request in February, LAist followed up with district officials in April with a request for records that would show how much the district actually spent implementing the ban. We asked LAUSD to provide contracts, proposals or invoices related to the implementation of the cellphone policy.

    District staff acknowledged LAist’s request by email and extended the timeline to provide a response twice, but in three months have yet to provide any records.

    How do public records requests work in LAUSD?

    An LAUSD spokesperson said in a statement that the district received more than 2,000 Public Records Act “submissions” in 2024.

    LAUSD funnels requests for information under the California Public Records Act to staff members within the district’s Office of the General Counsel. The district must accept verbal requests, but encourages people to submit requests to the “PRA Unit” in writing. 

    From there the PRA Unit:

    • Identifies the record or records and who within the district is responsible for it. 
    • Reviews the record or records to see if they are relevant to the request, can legally be released or contain privileged information. “This is not merely a clerical task, as it involves careful review and analysis of each page of a given record,” the spokesperson wrote.
    • Makes the responsive records available either electronically or physically to the person who requested them.

    Good to know about LAUSD records requests

    • You can contact LAUSD’s PRA unit at pra@lausd.net or (213) 241-6601. 
    • If you’re not sure what records will reveal the information you want, the district is obligated to help you make a “focused and effective request.
    • California law gives agencies 10 days to acknowledge a records request and provide an estimated timeline for when the information will be available. There are limited circumstances where the agency can extend this window.

    The district has fulfilled some of LAist’s public records requests in the past. For example, the district provided data about preschool enrollment in December 2024, about a month after it was first requested.

    What are LAUSD's other public records challenges?

    Multiple other requests remain unfulfilled.

    LAist asked for public records in February related to the district’s spending on arts education after a group of district families and a former superintendent filed a lawsuit. They accused LAUSD of misspending millions of dollars from a voter-approved ballot measure to expand arts education statewide.

    District staff said it was reviewing “potentially responsive” records in May, but did not provide an update by June 30, the estimate given in the last email sent to watchdog correspondent Jordan Rynning. The Los Angeles Times reported seeking similar records for more than a year.

    In June, the First Amendment Coalition called on LAUSD to release records related to employee misconduct to a freelance journalist.

    According to the nonprofit, the district failed to determine whether the records even existed for nearly a year and then requested $8,000 to continue its search for documents.

    “They're effectively denying the request and avoiding accountability altogether by making the records prohibitively expensive to receive,”  Annie Cappetta, a former legal fellow at the organization, told LAist.

    LAist sent district representatives a list of questions related to each of the unfilled public records requests named in this story. We received a statement in response that outlined the workflow for providing records, but did not address our specific requests.

    “Although the PRA Unit prides itself on responsiveness, the extremely high volume of PRA requests and subsequent due diligence required often precludes the immediate turn-around time desired by many of the requesters,” the Los Angeles Unified spokesperson wrote. They also asked that “official statements of the district” not be attributed to a single individual.

    The spokesperson directed LAist to its PRA Unit for the status of individual requests.

    The last email LAist got from that office regarding its request for information about the cellphone policy — dated May 8 — said records or an updated timeline would be provided by June 20.

  • Voting begins to authorize a strike
    Four women hold up a black tarp sign and wear red shirts. Some are holding inflatable soccer balls. The woman in the center is holding a picket sign that reads "Kick ICE Out! Unite Here! Local 11". Letters behind them read "SoFi Stadium"
    Sofi Stadium workers, including cooks, bartenders, dishwashers, servers and cashiers, protest outside the stadium, ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup in Inglewood on May 18, 2026.

    Topline:

    Workers at SoFi Stadium begin voting today on whether to authorize a strike, just days before the World Cup launches in Los Angeles.

    Why it matters: Some 2,000 unionized food and beverage workers at the stadium have been threatening to walk off the job for weeks over concerns about Immigrations and Customs Enforcement's role in tournament security and other demands, including premium pay for lucrative events like the World Cup. But they've yet to strike a deal with Legends Global, the company that runs the stadium's bars and food services.

    The backstory: The contract between Legends and its workers expired last year, and the two sides are currently negotiating a new agreement. The union has been leveraging its role in the coming World Cup to push for higher wages, especially at mega-events like the World Cup that rake in major profits. Unite Here and Legends were at the bargaining table Wednesday, but Petersen said that they still hadn't made a deal.

    What's next: The two sides are scheduled to return to the bargaining table on Monday.

    Read on... about the ongoing dispute.

    Workers at SoFi Stadium started voting Thursday on whether to authorize a strike, just days before the World Cup launches in Los Angeles.

    Some 2,000 unionized food and beverage workers at the stadium have been threatening to walk off the job for weeks over concerns about Immigrations and Customs Enforcement's role in tournament security and other demands, including premium pay for lucrative events like the World Cup.

    But they've yet to strike a deal with Legends Global, the company that runs the stadium's bars and food services.

    " I think the combination of the World Cup being unable to get their stuff together and the greediness of the stadium owners may end up leading to workers having to call for a strike," said Kurt Petersen, co-president of the union representing SoFi workers, Unite Here Local 11.

    The contract between Legends and its workers expired last year, and the two sides are currently negotiating a new agreement. The union has been leveraging its role in the coming World Cup to push for higher wages, especially at mega-events like the World Cup that rake in major profits. Unite Here and Legends were at the bargaining table Wednesday, but Petersen said that they still hadn't made a deal.

    Workers are also concerned that FIFA's plans for its luxury suites will lock them out of lucrative jobs during the tournament. FIFA has brought in a company called On Location to offer exclusive packages that can cost tens of thousands of dollars or more. Union workers at SoFi say they're worried that those jobs will go to subcontractors without union protections.

    Petersen said that workers represented by his union still don't have their schedules for the World Cup, and that the union doesn't have details on the company's agreement with On Location.

    " It is kind of a mess," Petersen said. "Which is also adding fuel to people's anger. Like, really? We have this massive event coming, you want us to work super hard and you can't even tell us what we're gonna be doing when we're coming in, what our schedules are?"

    Legends Global did not return a request for comment.

    SoFi workers have also been pushing for protections from ICE, which will play a "key role" in tournament security, according to the former head of the agency.

    Multiple officials including L.A. County Sheriff Robert Luna have said they've received assurances that federal agents won't be conducting immigration enforcement, but Luna said there are no guarantees. Petersen said workers want the option to walk off the job if they feel unsafe because of ICE's presence.

    Unite Here filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board in April, saying ICE's planned presence at the World Cup threatened the union's ability to collectively bargain. The union has also asked California Attorney General Rob Bonta to investigate FIFA's accreditation process for stadium workers, which requires Social Security numbers and other personal information.

    FIFA responded in a statement saying that data would be deleted after the fact, and the accreditation process does "not constitute pre-employment checks."

    The sporting body did not respond to a request for comment on how a strike at SoFi Stadium could potentially affect the eight matches in Los Angeles.

    The results of Unite Here's strike authorization vote could be out as early as Friday evening. If workers vote yes, fans who attend the first U.S. match in Inglewood on June 12 could show up to a picket line.

    The two sides are scheduled to return to the bargaining table on Monday.

  • Sponsored message
  • Applications are open for MacArthur Park event
    Wilshire Boulevard between MacArthur Park and Lafayette Park will be transformed into a space featuring screenings of the World Cup games in July and vendors will have the opportunity to set up shop and sell their goods as part of the celebration.


    Topline:

    Food vendors, artisans and performers interested in participating in the World Cup-themed event at MacArthur Park have less than a week left to apply for a spot to set up shop and sell their goods as part of the celebration.

    How to apply: Applications are open through June 8. According to CD1, 26 applications have already been submitted for 40 available vendor spaces. There are no application or vending fees to participate, though vendors must have a valid vending permit by the start of the event. Council District 1 says it is conducting outreach to businesses surrounding the park and working with community partners to promote the opportunity.

    About the two day event: The two-day open streets event is scheduled for July 10 and July 11. Wilshire Boulevard between MacArthur Park and Lafayette Park will be transformed into a space featuring screenings of the World Cup games.

    This story first appeared on The LA Local.

    Wilshire Boulevard between MacArthur Park and Lafayette Park will be transformed into a space featuring screenings of the World Cup games in July and vendors will have the opportunity to set up shop and sell their goods as part of the celebration.

    Food vendors, artisans and performers interested in participating in the World Cup-themed event at MacArthur Park have less than a week left to apply for a spot.

    Council District 1 is currently accepting applications for the two-day open streets event scheduled for July 10 and July 11.  Interested applicants can apply online here.

    Applications are open through June 8. According to CD1, 26 applications have already been submitted for 40 available vendor spaces.

    “Vendor interest has been strong,” said Jonathan Romero, a spokesperson for CD1. “Reflecting a great mix of food and drink, arts and crafts, and health and community resources.”

    There are no application or vending fees to participate, though vendors must have a valid vending permit by the start of the event. 

    For some MacArthur Park vendors, the event represents a potential opportunity to reach new customers during the World Cup.

    Rabi Gaidani, a street vendor who sells clothing and shoes near MacArthur Park, said he had not previously heard about the Park to Park opportunity, but now plans to apply. 

    “I would love that,” he said. “When the World Cup comes, it’s super good. We have more chances with people coming from all over.”

    But not all vendors are convinced the opportunity will be accessible to everyone.

    Another vendor, who sells shampoos, soaps and creams near MacArthur Park, said she was  unaware of the event. Her reaction reflects a frustration some street vendors say they have experienced for years: learning about city-sponsored events only after plans are already well underway. 

    The vendor, who asked not to be named due to her immigration status, said opportunities often do not reach the people who work around the park every day.

    She added that the organizations the city partners with do not directly reach out to vendors like her. 

    Council District 1 says it is conducting outreach to businesses surrounding the park and working with community partners to promote the opportunity.

    “I think they should improve how they select vendors,” she said.

    She added that she worries the World Cup event could even draw customers away from businesses like hers, similar to what she says happens during large Guatemalan community celebrations in the neighborhood. 

    She said people tend to gravitate toward wherever the festivities are taking place. 

    “People want to go where the excitement is, where they’re showing the World Cup,” she said. “The World Cup isn’t going to bring us anything.”

    More information about the event is available at cd1.lacity.gov/p2p.

  • Five things to know about Trump admin's new policy
    A crowd of people standing outside lined up in rows hold American flags in one hand as they raise their other hand.
    About 50 new United States citizens from 25 different countries take part in a naturalization ceremony before the San Diego Padres host the Minnesota Twins in a baseball game at Petco Park in San Diego on Aug. 21, 2024.

    Topline:

    If the goal was to confuse everyone, the mission was accomplished. Just before Memorial Day, the Trump administration issued a sweeping new policy directive that took aim at legal immigration. It would have required most temporary visa holders and humanitarian parolees living in the U.S. to return to their home countries to await their green cards.

    Why it matters: The memo and accompanying news release bucked a longstanding policy of allowing immigrants to remain in the U.S. while waiting for green cards, stating individuals would have to go back to their home countries except in “extraordinary” cases.

    Confusion: Then, late last Friday, the Trump administration began downplaying the significance of the previous week’s orders, which had already caused panic, confusion and concern among immigrant families and attorneys.

    Read on... for more on what to know about the Trump administration's new green card policy.

    If the goal was to confuse everyone, the mission was accomplished.

    Just before Memorial Day, the Trump administration issued a sweeping new policy directive that took aim at legal immigration. It would have required most temporary visa holders and humanitarian parolees living in the U.S. to return to their home countries to await their green cards.

    The memo and accompanying news release bucked a longstanding policy of allowing immigrants to remain in the U.S. while waiting for green cards, stating individuals would have to go back to their home countries except in “extraordinary” cases.

    Then, late last Friday, the Trump administration began downplaying the significance of the previous week’s orders, which had already caused panic, confusion and concern among immigrant families and attorneys.

    The Department of Homeland Security told the New York Times that it wasn’t a blanket policy and that individual officers in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have always had the discretion to decide.

    “That’s a CYA,” said Patrick Kolasinski, an immigration attorney based in Modesto. “To me, it seems really clear that what they’re doing in their covering-their-bases thing is … a little bit of public blowback, but also trying to avoid some litigation because trying to change this policy the way they did is completely illegal.”

    An unnamed Department Homeland Security spokesperson also told the Times that the groups that could be heavily affected include people who overstay visas or come from countries whose citizens are heavy users of public assistance.

    The department did not respond to a CalMatters question about the apparent reverse course of the newly announced policy, as reported by the New York Times.

    Many questions remain unanswered about the new policy and how it will be applied, but legal experts say it is part of an ongoing pattern by the Trump administration targeting people trying to follow established guidelines for obtaining a legal status. Employers, especially those in the tech sector, have loudly balked at the new memo, saying the mandate could disrupt operations and cause talent to leave.

    The new mandate will almost certainly end up in court, but where does that leave people now?

    Here are a few things to know:

    Who is affected by new green card rules?

    Relatives of U.S. citizens, laid-off tech workers, mixed-status families and international students are among those most at risk.

    The change would mostly affect people already inside the United States who are applying for permanent residency, a process called adjustment of status. Roughly half of all green cards issued each year go to people already living inside the U.S., according to the Department of Homeland Security.

    In 2023, 112,100 Californians received green cards through adjustment of status. That's more than any other state, accounting for nearly one in five of all U.S adjustments in 2023.

    Family-based applicants make up the largest share, as opposed to employment-based applications. About 64% of all new green card recipients in 2023 obtained status through a family relationship with a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, according to DHS.

    It’s not clear if the policy would apply to people with pending adjustment applications. Lynn Damiano Pearson, the director of legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, said immigration attorneys are already seeing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers question applicants in ways that suggest the answer is yes.

    Some immigration lawyers told CalMatters people were asked by officers in interviews last week why they were applying for green cards from within the United States, and if any factors would keep them from applying and waiting in their home countries.

    “People are being questioned about consular processing in a way that seems to flow directly from this new memo and makes us assume, unfortunately, that this administration is planning to apply the policy retroactively,” Damiano Pearson told CalMatters last week.

    The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a question from CalMatters about whether the policy change applies to people with applications already in the pipeline Instead, in a written statement, the department said the policy “will have no noticeable impact on highly qualified applicants and skilled professionals who have followed the law.” The spokesperson declined to provide their name.

    Congress created adjustment of status

    Congress created adjustment of status in 1952, and it has been used by administrations of both political parties for more than 70 years. More than half a million people use it each year. The new memo reframes that process as “extraordinary.”

    “This memo is wrong. It’s reprehensible. It’s illegal,” said Jeff Joseph, the president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. He said he is “100% sure that it’s going to be litigated.”

    Nina Sheridan, a spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, indicated the same. “The Trump administration continues to wage a campaign against legal immigration, putting up barriers and pushing out immigrants who are trying to follow the established process to obtain permanent residence,” she said. “We’re monitoring where the administration goes next with its latest attempt to flout longstanding law and policy, and we are evaluating our options.”

    The Department of Homeland Security told CalMatters the memo “restates longstanding law and policy” that was “disregarded by the Biden Administration.”

    A close up of a hand with light skin tone holding a green card with text that reads "United States of America Permanent Resident."
    (
    iStock
    )

    Immigrants fear a deportation trap

    Many people who applied for green cards have, with the government’s blessing, allowed their original visa to expire while they wait for their interview, sometimes for years because of backlogs in processing. Under the new policy memo, attorneys worry that could be used against them.

    Lawyers are concerned people could be denied at their interview and then immediately placed into removal proceedings. Last year, people were taken into custody at their routine immigration appointments and then detained, sometimes for months.

    Damiano Pearson said it is too early to say how often that could happen, but she said experts could not rule out the possibility that ICE agents might take people into custody immediately following their citizenship interviews.

    Many applicants can't go back home

    For most applicants, consular processing would not be a quick plane ride home to sign some paperwork. Wait times and backlogs for Department of State processing can take years to resolve.

    “This is not about buying a plane ticket and waiting a little bit longer,” said Ben Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “For many people, consulate processing is not realistic or safe, and for others it can mean months or years of separation from U.S. citizen spouses, children, employers, and communities.”

    Visa processing has been halted completely in more than 70 countries.

    Immigrants who have overstayed their visas could face three to 10-year reentry bans if they are forced to leave and apply from abroad.

    “We don’t know from the language of the memo if those issues will be taken into account,” Damiano Pearson said.

    “This memo has obviously created a lot of panic and fear amongst people who thought they were well on their way to receiving a green card.”

    What are attorneys telling their clients?

    Kolasinski, the immigration attorney, said he has clients with green card interviews this week who are nervous about what might happen next.

    “You walk in, and you have no idea what kind of officer you’re going to get and what they’re operating under,” he said.

    “There is no more rule of law. There is no more predictability. It’s completely the Wild West, and that’s been the case for a year and a half now,” said Kolasinski.

    His advice to clients with interviews scheduled: Don’t go alone. “Nobody should be doing anything with immigration these days without a lawyer present,” he said.

    CalMatters’ journalism engineer Mohamed Al Elew contributed to this report. 

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

  • May Richardson claims large lead in reelection bid
    Mayor Rex Richardson, a man with dark skin tone wearing a black suit, hugs County Supervisor Janice Hahn, a woman with light skin tone, wearing a black coat, as they both smile. They stand in front of a bar next to a crowd of people cheering and smiling.
    Mayor Rex Richardson hugs County Supervisor Janice Hahn at his election night party in Long Beach on Tuesday, June 2, 2026.

    Topline:

    Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson stormed ahead in early returns Tuesday night, overshadowing six little-known rivals and potentially securing him four more years in office in a race that strengthens his standing for a potential run for higher office.

    More details: With over 56,000 ballots counted and more still being tallied, Richardson was holding just over 56% of the vote. Joshua Rodriguez, a former law enforcement officer, was in second with 20.4%, followed by local business owner Chris Sweeney at 10.2%.

    The backstory: The mayor’s race in Long Beach is a tough one for political newcomers. The city has not elected a mayor who hasn’t first sat on the City Council since Beverly O’Neill’s inaugural win in 1994.

    Read on... for more on the mayor's race in Long Beach.

    Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson stormed ahead in early returns Tuesday night, overshadowing six little-known rivals and potentially securing him four more years in office in a race that strengthens his standing for a potential run for higher office.

    With over 56,000 ballots counted and more still being tallied, Richardson was holding just over 56% of the vote.

    Joshua Rodriguez, a former law enforcement officer, was in second with 20.4%, followed by local business owner Chris Sweeney at 10.2%.

    Standing beside family and several City Council members at a rooftop election night party, Richardson thanked his supporters, saying the results reflect a voter base that supports his vision for the city and the direction it is headed.

    “For me, this means we’re going to continue building jobs, jobs that are accessible, good high-paying union jobs in our city,” he said. “We’re going to continue to attract companies as the fastest growing aerospace cluster in America in Space Beach. We’re going to continue building housing in every part of our city.”

    Richardson used his speech to reiterate his plan to remake Long Beach as an entertainment and sports destination.

    He gestured for the crowd to look right, toward the newly built coastal amphitheater that debuts Saturday. “The industries of the past will not serve us well in the future,” Richardson said.

    Richardson first won his seat in a 2022 general election with 56.6% of the vote, or 63,184 ballots, over then-Councilmember Suzie Price.

    None of his challengers this year had as much political experience as Price, and Richardson substantially outraised them all.

    Richardson spent more than $358,000, pulling from the $472,000 raised through donations from powerful unions, established Democratic colleagues and many of the defense companies he has helped bring to the city. By comparison, nonprofit executive Terri Rivers spent $17,000, and Sweeney spent nearly $10,000.

    The mayor’s race in Long Beach is a tough one for political newcomers. The city has not elected a mayor who hasn’t first sat on the City Council since Beverly O’Neill’s inaugural win in 1994.

    Early results in other races also favor incumbents

    Results are as of 2:08 a.m. Wednesday. See the latest numbers at results.lavote.gov

    Five City Council offices and the city auditor’s seat were also at stake in Tuesday’s primary, with incumbents across the city — except in the 7th District, where longtime Councilmember Roberto Uranga was termed out — holding early leads over their challengers.

    City Auditor

    Incumbent Laura Doud was leading Ginny Gonzalez with 71.1% of the vote compared to 28.9%. They are the only two candidates in the race.

    1st District 

    Incumbent Mary Zendejas was leading with 50.9% of the vote. Deb Kahookele was in second place with 14.6% of the vote. There are six candidates in the race.

    3rd District

    Incumbent Kristina Duggan was ahead with 66.5% of the vote. Rebecca Hinderer was in second place with 25.9% of the vote among four candidates.

    5th District 

    Incumbent Megan Kerr had 51.2% of the vote versus 48.8% for her challenger Tara Riggi. They are the only two candidates in the race.

    Kerr said she was “cautiously optimistic” her lead would hold after a bruising race. “This was not an easy ride this time around,” she told her supporters.

    District 5 Councilmember Megan Kerr, a woman with light skin tone, curly hair, wearing a black jacket over a teal shirt, smiles and claps as she looks out of frame.
    Megan Kerr, District 5 Councilmember, attends an election night party in Long Beach on Tuesday, June 3, 2026.
    (
    Thomas R. Cordova
    /
    Long Beach Post
    )

    Richardson, who endorsed her, said he expected her to cruise to victory at this point.

    “Councilwoman Megan Kerr stood up for affordable housing, and they tried to punish her for it, because she believes in a Long Beach that looks like this, where everybody has a seat at the table and a place to call home,” Richardson said in his election night speech. “And I’m so proud that the Fifth District voters agree.”

    7th District 

    LBCC Trustee Vivian Malauulu had 75.1% of the vote. Dameon Gordon was in second place with 17.5%. Jamies Shuford had 7.4% of the vote.

    9th District

    Incumbent Joni Ricks-Oddie led with 66.6% of the vote. Sequoia Neff is her only challenger and had 33.4% of the vote.

    Will there be runoffs?

    Any candidate who earns more than 50% of the vote in the June 2 primary wins outright. If no candidate reaches that mark, the top two vote-getters will advance to a Nov. 3 runoff. In tight races, final results may not be clear for weeks.

    Voter turnout appeared strong Tuesday, with Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan reporting earlier in the day that at around 2 p.m., more than 100,000 voters had cast a ballot in person and nearly 1 million mail-in ballots had been received — about three percentage points higher than the June 2022 gubernatorial primary election.