Topline:
Food editor Gab Chabran shares one thing he ate in the past seven days that stands out.
The dish: A Venezuelan arepa, which occupies a nebulous space between a sandwich, a taco, and a pupusa.
The location: Nova Bakery, 865 E Seventh St, Unit C, Long Beach.
The reason for delight: Salchicha (a hot dog-like chicken sausage) melted cheese and a tangy fry sauce in a grilled “bun” offered perfectly balanced tastes and textures.
I first heard about Nova Bakery, a small cafe in Long Beach that offers fast casual Venezuelan food, from my friend Juan Loza, who runs Opochtli, a local ceviche pop-up.
The bakery lived up to his recommendation. I tried the cachapas, a griddled corn cake folded in half and sprinkled with grated cheese, and a few empanadas that contained both beef and chicken — both were tasty.
But the menu item that stopped me in my tracks was the arepas. If you’ve never had one, the arepa occupies a nebulous space between a sandwich, a taco, and a pupusa. It features a “bun” made with white corn flour, cooked on a flat-top grill, and then filled with beef, chicken, or salchicha.
I opted for the salchicha, a hot dog type of chicken sausage cut into rounds. After one bite, this particular arepa felt like what I always hope a Big Mac from McDonald's will taste like.
The jungle of densely packed, melted grated white cheese, mixed with their signature tangy fry sauce lying atop the sausage delivered a balanced, spicy, and perfectly layered sweetness—a mouthful of goodness.
While savoring my arepa, the much-debated question,” Is a hot dog a sandwich?” came to mind. It was then I realized I’d just stumbled upon a delicious loophole.
Cost: $8.99
Location: Nova Bakery, 865 E Seventh St, Unit C, Long Beach, CA 90813
Hours: Sunday through Wednesday, 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturday, 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Topline:
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a last-minute request from the Department of Justice to wade into its unprecedented feud with California over the state's voter rolls.
What happened: The court denied taking up the Justice Department's appeal today, just hours after it was filed. Election Day is tomorrow.
Why now: The appeal was the department's latest foray into state election administration, which a federal judge referred to last week as "a broad, ongoing pattern of attempted election interference by federal officials."
About the claims: The DOJ says it has identified 20,000 "likely" noncitizens on California's voter roll whose ballots should not be counted until their citizenship can be verified. Over the weekend, data scientists at University of California Los Angeles' Voting Rights Project were granted access to the DOJ's list through a court order in another lawsuit and found that 42% of the names on the list do not appear on California's current voter roll. That analysis also found naturalized citizens on the DOJ's list.
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a last-minute request from the Department of Justice to wade into its unprecedented feud with California over the state's voter rolls.
The court denied taking up the Justice Department's appeal on Monday evening, just hours after it was filed. Election Day is Tuesday.
The appeal was the department's latest foray into state election administration, which a federal judge referred to last week as "a broad, ongoing pattern of attempted election interference by federal officials."
After that judge, David Carter, a Clinton appointee, and a divided 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected the DOJ's request to order California to set aside and stop processing the ballots of thousands of people, the DOJ sought injunctive relief from the high court.
The DOJ says it has identified 20,000 "likely" noncitizens on California's voter roll whose ballots should not be counted until their citizenship can be verified.
Courts so far have sided with California and Los Angeles County's arguments that the federal government's list is unreliable, and that creating a novel system to segregate ballots while voting is already underway is infeasible.
"[T]here is a material risk that granting the United States its requested relief would result in disenfranchisement and could jeopardize the County's entire election," 9th Circuit Judges Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Gabriel Sanchez, a Biden appointee, wrote in their Friday decision rejecting the Justice Department's emergency request.
The two judges cited longstanding legal precedent, known as the Purcell principle, that election rules should not be altered on the eve of an election, as well as the fact that the Constitution gives states authority to run elections. The opinion also cited the National Voter Registration Act, which bars states from systematically removing ineligible voters within 90 days of a federal election.
The panel's third judge, Patrick Bumatay, also a Trump appointee, dissented.
The actual number of ballots in dispute is likely much smaller than 20,000, since county election officials have found that many of the people on DOJ's list did not have active voter registrations and were not mailed ballots.
Over the weekend, data scientists at University of California Los Angeles' Voting Rights Project were granted access to the DOJ's list through a court order in another lawsuit and found that 42% of the names on the list do not appear on California's current voter roll. That analysis also found naturalized citizens on the DOJ's list.
The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene comes as the Justice Department has been escalating its feud with California election officials.
In recent weeks, the Department of Justice has sent subpoenas to election officials in California, and reminded officials that they could be criminally prosecuted for allowing ineligible voters to cast ballots.
A federal judge in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order late Friday barring the Trump administration from threatening, intimidating or coercing election officials to demand they stop processing the ballots of registered voters that the federal government alleges are ineligible to vote. The federal government has appealed the order.
Copyright 2026 NPR
Topline:
If Rep. Mike Levin’s proposal moves forward, the spent nuclear fuel stashed on the beach at San Onofre will be stored and processed at one of several potential campuses in other states. Levin, a Democratic congress member representing parts of San Diego and Orange County, discussed his plan from a point above the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station last week.
Why it matters: Levin is pushing to create facilities called Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses in communities that want to recycle some of the spent fuel and store remaining waste, in exchange for economic development opportunities. The Department of Energy said the campuses could “attract significant investment, expand domestic manufacturing, and create thousands of new high-paying jobs in their respective regions.” Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Idaho have stepped up as potential hosts for the facilities. Finland and Canada have embarked on similar efforts to locate nuclear waste facilities, with the consent and collaboration of local communities, according to a report by Levin’s office. Finland expects to permanently dispose of nuclear waste as soon as next year.
The backstory: San Onofre ceased operating in 2013, after a newly installed steam generator failed, leaving the plant inoperable. Officials began decommissioning the plant in 2020. Since then, 700 million tons of building material have been hauled away from the site, and the spent fuel rods were moved from cooling pools to dry storage on the beach, Levin said. But there isn’t a permanent repository for the spent nuclear fuel, following backlash to an earlier proposal to store the waste.
If Rep. Mike Levin’s proposal moves forward, the spent nuclear fuel stashed on the beach at San Onofre will be stored and processed at one of several potential campuses in other states.
Levin, a Democratic congress member representing parts of San Diego and Orange County, discussed his plan from a point above the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station last week.
“Since I've been in Congress, getting this spent nuclear fuel off our coast has been one of my top priorities,” Levin said, overlooking the Pacific Ocean and the steel and concrete canisters housing nuclear fuel rods. “I have been in this fight for eight years, fighting the status quo of inaction on spent nuclear fuel.”
He’s pushing to create facilities called Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses in communities that want to recycle some of the spent fuel and store remaining waste, in exchange for economic development opportunities.
The Department of Energy said the campuses could “attract significant investment, expand domestic manufacturing, and create thousands of new high-paying jobs in their respective regions.” Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Idaho have stepped up as potential hosts for the facilities.
Finland and Canada have embarked on similar efforts to locate nuclear waste facilities, with the consent and collaboration of local communities, according to a report by Levin’s office. Finland expects to permanently dispose of nuclear waste as soon as next year.
Levin said similar U.S. sites could begin operation by the late 2030s, and he’s pushing to make the San Onofre plant a priority for nuclear waste removal and storage.
San Onofre ceased operating in 2013, after a newly installed steam generator failed, leaving the plant inoperable. Officials began decommissioning the plant in 2020.
Since then, 700 million tons of building material have been hauled away from the site, and the spent fuel rods were moved from cooling pools to dry storage on the beach, Levin said.
But there isn’t a permanent repository for the spent nuclear fuel, following backlash to an earlier proposal to store the waste.
“The federal government still hasn't done what it pledged to do all the way back in 1998, and so communities like ours have been left holding the fuel,” Levin said.
The federal government previously designated the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada as the permanent storage site for nuclear waste. But former president Barack Obama cancelled that plan in 2010, following fierce opposition from environmentalists, local groups and tribes.
Without a permanent storage repository, spent nuclear fuel has remained on site at San Onofre, where its location on the coast, near earthquake faults and next to Camp Pendleton make the waste vulnerable to natural disaster or national security threats.
To address those risks, Levin introduced the Spent Fuel Prioritization Act with co-authors including Rep. Darrell Issa, a San Diego Republican, and Rep.Young Kim, an Orange County Republican. It would move nuclear sites with high seismic hazards, large populations and national security risk, such as San Onofre, up the list for fuel removal and storage. The bill is waiting for consideration in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, according to Levin’s 2026 report on San Onofre.
Another challenge concerns transport of spent nuclear fuel. Levin said next year a specially designed train called the Atlas Railcar System will complete testing and move the first spent fuel rods from Virginia to Idaho. The Atlas is a 12-axle railcar equipped with sensors and monitoring systems, which can transport nearly half a million pounds of spent nuclear fuel, according to the Department of Energy. It took ten years and cost $33 million dollars to build.
Levin has also introduced bills to create a nuclear waste administration, to require nuclear waste canisters to last 100 years instead of the current 40 years, and to increase public engagement and improve safety inspection at decommissioning power plants.
“I will not declare victory on this until the last canister has left San Onofre,” he said.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
Topline:
Voter turnout is tracking higher across the state than at this point in the June primary, which is typical for elections.
About the results: No results will be released until after the polls close at 8 p.m. on Tuesday. The first tallies will be vote-by-mail ballots, followed by early in-person voting.'
Read on ... for more about the vote counting process.
Election officials in both Los Angeles and Orange counties report the early vote is trending higher than the last midterm election in 2022 — on trend with expectations across the U.S.
Nationally, Democrats have outpaced Republicans returning early ballots by more than 10 points, according to tracking by the University of Florida Election Lab.
Here's what you should know about the local vote totals currently released:
Keep in mind that Nov. 10 will be the final day for votes postmarked by Nov. 3 to arrive at county elections offices, so the total number of votes cast won't be known until then.
In L.A. County, updates on the counting are expected to continue through Nov. 26.
The county must certify results by Dec. 3.
In Orange County, updates on the counting are expected to continue through Nov. 26.
The county must certify results by Dec. 3.
That hasn't been true in quite some time. It takes a while to get results because after the initial tallies on election night, there are still many, many votes to count, and more mail-in ballots are usually arriving.
Here’s what we know so far.
Los Angeles County has more than 5.9 million registered voters. As of Monday, Nov. 2:
What's next:
Orange County has more than 1.9 million registered voters. As of midday Monday, Nov. 2:
What's next:
Political Data Inc. is tracking ballot returns across California and in some high-profile races.
As of Monday, Nov. 2, statewide turnout is 25%. Note: That is already higher than this time in the primary. Democrats outnumber Republicans statewide by almost double, and have returned more ballots so far (3 million compared to 1.6 million — representing 29% and 28% of each party's registered voters.
Because of the increasing use of vote-by-mail ballots, the tally has gotten longer, according to the California Voter Foundation. In an analysis, the organization found:
Election officials must physically open mail-in ballots and verify signatures.
Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, recently wrote about the ripple effect of turning in mail-in ballots by hand or in drop boxes on Election Day. She wrote, for our partner newsroom CalMatters:
"We turn in ballots in envelopes on Election Day that take time and care to process and cannot be processed until after Election Day. Processing these ballots — which account for as much as a quarter of all ballots cast — creates a bottleneck I like to call 'the pig in the python effect.' It prevents counties from doing other tasks they need to do to certify the results."
That said, counting has been speeding up considerably. According to Alexander's organization, the overall share of ballots counted within seven days of the election jumped from 72% in 2022 to 93% in the June primary. L.A. County is moving to around-the-clock counting this cycle, in a move election officials say will help increase voter confidence in the results.
Topline:
Colleges and universities will soon have to make it easier for students to request more financial aid, as well as be more transparent about how they estimate the cost of attendance.
Why it matters: A new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September requires colleges and universities to clearly display how students can request additional financial aid if they believe their awarded amount does not sufficiently cover their costs. Institutions must also publish how they calculate their costs of attendance, which is used to determine how much financial aid students receive.
The backstory: Existing law already requires campuses to publish cost estimates, which not only include tuition and fees, but also housing, transportation, food and other likely expenses. With the new requirements, advocates say that students will now have an easier time finding what to do when their costs exceed those estimates.
Read on... for more on the new law.
Colleges and universities will soon have to make it easier for students to request more financial aid, as well as be more transparent about how they estimate the cost of attendance.
A new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September requires colleges and universities to clearly display how students can request additional financial aid if they believe their awarded amount does not sufficiently cover their costs. Institutions must also publish how they calculate their costs of attendance, which is used to determine how much financial aid students receive.
Authored by Democratic Assemblymembers Celeste Rodriguez of the San Fernando Valley and Marc Berman of Menlo Park, Assembly Bill 2251 requires schools to implement the changes by the fall of 2027.
Existing law already requires campuses to publish cost estimates, which not only include tuition and fees, but also housing, transportation, food and other likely expenses. With the new requirements, advocates say that students will now have an easier time finding what to do when their costs exceed those estimates.
“California has a really strong record of looking at new ways to improve college affordability and AB 2251 is yet another example,” said Laura Szabo-Kubitz, senior policy advisor at The Institute of College Access and Success, an organization that advocates for college affordability. “It’s a step towards other advocacy efforts to bridge the affordability gap.”
Junely Merwin, now a consultant for The Foster Youth Pre-College Collective, received a full-ride scholarship to attend Cal State Fullerton in 2015. But as a former foster youth and young mother, she needed additional aid to help cover childcare costs.
“My money really went down the drain to child care and just how expensive it was,” Merwin said. “Even with the full-ride scholarship, it was not enough.”
Seeking more financial support, Merwin came across her school’s process to revise her cost of attendance. However, the website was unclear and, when she reached out to the financial aid office with questions, she was passed along to multiple staff members.
After she was finally able to complete an appeal process, Merwin’s cost of attendance was adjusted to include her childcare expenses. This allowed her to accept more scholarship funds.
Over half of colleges and universities statewide use estimates that are lower than what students actually pay to attend college, with some underestimating it by over $10,000, according to 2024 research from John Burton Advocates for Youth, the lead sponsor of the law. The California organization advocates for unhoused and foster youth.
Students cannot receive more financial aid - including loans, grants and some scholarships - than the estimated cost of attendance calculated by the campus. This can lead them to work excessive hours and take fewer classes to make up the difference, according to research from The Institute for College Access and Success.
When students’ costs exceed those calculated by their college, they can apply for a cost of attendance adjustment. But students often don’t know that is an option.
According to a March report from John Burton Advocates for Youth, almost half of colleges statewide fail to adequately inform students of the resources and options available to them when applying for aid adjustments.
Those adjustments can be especially helpful to low-income students and former foster youth, who often receive the maximum amount of aid but still need more, said the organization’s director of education, Jessica Petrass. Because of this, students often have to turn down additional aid they would otherwise be eligible for.
Representatives of campus programs that provide support for foster youth across the state’s three higher education systems do not find cost adjustment processes to be accessible, concluded a report by the John Burton youth advocacy organization. A majority of those surveyed said information on campus websites is insufficient and unclear.
“That is why I see AB 2251 as both a transparency and student access issue, because it is not enough to simply have a policy in place,” Merwin said. “Information needs to be communicated clearly, consistently, in a way that students can actually understand and use.”
Colleges vary greatly in how and where they explain how to request an adjustment to the cost of attendance and financial aid limit. While some schools plainly detail costs on their websites, others lead students through a maze of weblinks and documents.
Under the new law, campuses must publish clear details on how a student can submit an adjustment request, how long it might take and who they might need to speak to. This information will need to appear on the same page as the school’s cost of attendance details.
Jackie Cordero, a first-generation college student who attends UC Santa Cruz, is currently going through the process of requesting an adjustment to her cost of attendance. Cordero chose UC Santa Cruz because of the generous financial aid package she was offered. But after her father was injured and could no longer work, she was left to figure out how to pay for the expenses her financial aid didn’t cover.
Through her own research, and by contacting the financial aid office herself, she found that requesting more financial aid was an option. But it has not been easy. Cordero said that the documents her school asked for — detailing her father’s work termination and her mother’s income — didn’t exist in physical form. She's struggled to supplement that paperwork, and instead has had to write letters detailing her family's finances.
“There should probably be a little bit more help towards people who want to do a cost of attendance (adjustment),” she said. “I still am a little confused about the process and approaching (the financial aid office) can be a little difficult.”
Under federal law, students are not required to submit documentation for cost of attendance adjustments, but colleges almost always request them before granting additional awards.
Across all three public higher education systems, staff at John Burton Advocates for Youth found that 83% of campuses do not reveal the breakdown of the total cost of each expense category – such as housing and transportation – on their websites. This information allows students to have a clearer understanding of whether their expenses exceed the calculated costs and if they might be eligible for a cost of attendance adjustment.
“At the end of the day, these budgets are an estimate … You're doing your best guess to get the best average to represent every student's unique circumstance,” Petrass said.
Most campuses do not cite the data sources behind their estimates. Only 17% of UCs, 26% of Cal States and 22% of community colleges explain how they come up with these estimates, according to the youth advocacy organization.
Each system calculates costs differently. UC schools use a survey conducted by its Office of the President. Cal State campuses and community colleges use a mix of data, including from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and survey estimates from the California Student Aid Commission.
While the law guarantees a new standard of transparency for financial aid, it does not provide any new financial aid funding, nor does it guarantee that any student’s cost of attendance adjustments will be approved.
The California Student Aid Commission estimates the state may spend anywhere from $805,000 to $2.3 million more on Cal Grant awards due to adjustment applications that wouldn’t have otherwise been submitted. That assumes a 3% to 5% increase in the number of adjustments approved annually, according to the commission.
Even if a student’s appeal for a financial aid increase is accepted, many campus financial aid websites say additional aid typically comes in the form of loans. The law will also not change the often-complicated cost adjustment process, or the way colleges estimate their cost of attendance.
“I think there are still areas in which California could continue to change policy to better strengthen this process,” Petrass said. “I think there's opportunities to look at reducing documentation requirements for students as well to, again, just make it a more seamless process that aligns with the minimum federal requirements.”
Mariam Farag and Max Guerra are contributors with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
