The Brief

The nation’s largest housing assistance program, Section 8, is a lifeline for tenants across the nation who would otherwise be priced out of expensive housing markets.

Under the program, tenants pay about a third of their income in rent, and the government subsidizes the rest. That’s life-changing in Los Angeles, where a one-bedroom apartment costs about $2,200 per month on average, and rent increases have outpaced wage growth, fueling an affordability crisis.

About 85,000 L.A. County residents rely on the Housing Choice Voucher program, as Section 8 is officially known, to afford their rent. Participants are allowed to live anywhere they choose, provided rents fall within limits set by local housing authorities.

Yet many tenants have difficulty finding landlords who will accept vouchers, even though in California and nearly two dozen other states, it’s illegal for landlords to reject Section 8 applicants solely because they pay rent with government aid. Under a California law that took effect last year, landlords also aren’t allowed to reject voucher holders based solely on their credit history. Instead, they must give them a chance to show pay stubs or other “lawful verifiable alternative evidence” they can pay their share of rent.

But some of the biggest landlords in the Los Angeles area are skirting anti-discrimination laws and turning away people seeking housing under the Section 8 program, a Capital & Main investigation found.

The yearlong investigation used public records, interviews and fair housing tests that included hundreds of inquiries to examine Section 8 voucher acceptance by some of the Los Angeles area’s largest landlords: Equity Residential, AvalonBay Communities, Essex Property Trust, Greystar, Prime Residential, G.H. Palmer Associates and Jamison Properties. While many of these landlords have national footprints, Capital & Main focused its investigation on their Los Angeles County operations.

As part of its reporting, Capital & Main hired and trained testers, who posed as Section 8 voucher holders and contacted leasing agents to ask about apartments listed on company websites.

Agents’ responses to testers’ questions suggested widespread violations of California housing law that would exclude many Section 8 voucher holders. Only one company — Jamison — categorically rejected Section 8 vouchers in many of its buildings.

In a statement, a Jamison spokesperson wrote “the management companies overseeing Jamison’s portfolio accept and welcome tenants utilizing Section 8 vouchers.”

Capital & Main based some of its findings on data collected by hired testers who called, emailed and exchanged text messages with leasing agents at 65 buildings across Los Angeles County in late 2024 and early 2025.

The U.S. Department of Justice, the California Civil Rights Department and nonprofit fair housing organizations have used such testing to ferret out evidence of illegal discrimination, and courts have held that the value the evidence testers provide outweighs the necessary deception in discovering it. Journalism organizations don’t often employ such testing, but when they have, as in a 2019 Newsday investigation of real estate agents, they have brought to light evidence of discrimination that would have otherwise remained unknown to the public. Marin County-based Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California provided training and materials for Capital & Main’s tests.

Capital & Main tested at six to nine buildings owned by each company. Then, after several Jamison agents said their buildings could not accept vouchers, Capital & Main conducted additional tests of its properties to determine how widespread such rejections were. The news organization tested only buildings with rental units priced within the limits set by the housing authorities in their areas. Testers made repeated attempts to understand leasing policies and practices at each building, sometimes reaching out several times to ensure accuracy.

The findings are also drawn from public records requests to local housing authorities for data on how many Section 8 tenants each company had. In all, the news organization reviewed documents obtained under the California Public Records Act from the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Development Authority, which covers unincorporated L.A. County and 62 cities within the county. Housing authorities in Glendale, Pasadena, Burbank, Santa Monica, Norwalk, Torrance and Long Beach also provided records. Several local housing authorities, including those in Inglewood, Compton, Culver City, Pomona, Hawthorne, Baldwin Park and South Gate declined to provide records, citing privacy concerns, or failed to respond to Capital & Main’s requests.

Capital & Main contacted each company several times to share test results and give each an opportunity to respond to its findings and answer specific questions about its policies.

Here are the results for each company.

The Roya Apartments in Koreatown is one of more than a dozen Jamison-owned properties where agents said they were not accepting Section 8 tenants. Photo by Barbara Davidson.

(

Barbara Davidson

/

Capital & Main

)

Jamison

Jamison, a group of family-run real estate companies based in L.A.’s Koreatown, was the only landlord whose leasing agents turned away testers posing as Section 8 renters, saying they could not accept their vouchers.

Only one Section 8 tenant moved into a Jamison building between 2021 and 2024, according to documents Capital & Main obtained from the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles through a public records request.

Jamison entered the multifamily residential market in 2013 and has since built more than 6,000 residential units with at least 2,500 planned or under construction.

Last fall, leasing agents at some Jamison buildings told testers working for Capital & Main that they were not accepting Section 8 vouchers until they received city approvals. For example, in September 2024 notes taken by a tester show that when she called to ask if the Sienna on Serrano apartments in L.A.’s Koreatown accepted Section 8 vouchers, a leasing agent said:

(

Capital & Main

)

The leasing agent’s statement was misleading: L.A. housing authority officials said no inspection process is required before a building can accept Section 8 tenants. Housing authorities inspect individual apartments once a Section 8 tenant has selected a unit.

In March 2025, a Capital & Main-hired tester did another round of inquiries about available apartments at 15 Jamison properties. Again, a leasing agent said the company was awaiting city approvals before it could accept Section 8 tenants.

Five other Jamison leasing representatives initially said they accepted vouchers, but two of them didn’t return calls requesting information about income and credit requirements. At three of the those buildings, agents said they would reject Section 8 applicants for poor credit history, even though that’s prohibited under California law. Landlords are required to consider a Section 8 applicant’s pay stubs or proof of government benefits in lieu of credit reports to evaluate their ability to pay.

For instance, a tester who inquired by phone about rentals at the Arden and Sawyer apartments noted the following exchange with a leasing agent:

(

Capital & Main

)

At the Westmore in L.A.’s Koreatown, a tester uncovered another apparent violation of California’s fair housing law. In an April 2025 phone call, a tester’s notes show that a leasing agent described minimum income requirements for Section 8 voucher holders that would be impossible for a Section 8 tenant to meet:

(

Capital & Main

)

A Jamison spokesperson wrote in a statement that the management companies overseeing the company’s portfolio “take proactive steps, including engaging a broker and nonprofits, to help identify individuals and families who hold vouchers or qualify for income-restricted Affordable Housing units.”

The spokesperson said “It also appears that the tester misunderstood the income requirement stated for Section 8 tenants. The law permits an income requirement based on the tenant’s portion of the rent, not the full rental amount. All property managers overseeing these buildings have rules and procedures in place to comply with all applicable laws.”

Vantage Hollywood Apartments was one of six Equity Residential buildings where an agents said they would reject Section 8 tenants based on credit history alone.

(

Barbara Davidson

/

Capital & Main

)

Equity Residential

Chicago-based Equity Residential owns nearly 15,000 apartments in about 60 properties in the Los Angeles area, its largest market. Its representatives — at eight buildings — said they accept Section 8 vouchers.

But at six of the buildings, agents told testers they wouldn’t consider alternative proof of creditworthiness in lieu of credit checks. For example, in response to a query about the Vantage Hollywood Apartments in Hollywood last September, a leasing representative said in this email exchange with a tester posing as a voucher holder that pay stubs would not be accepted as proof of creditworthiness:

(

Capital & Main

)

The Vantage Hollywood Apartments agent and five others at Equity misstated the company’s written policy. Its online rental application says the company accepts Section 8 applicants’ pay stubs, proof of government benefits or bank statements to show ability to pay rent. “If you provide us with that documentation, we will use that documentation instead of credit history,” the application says. But even though Equity’s policy is lawful, its agents’ misstatements would violate fair housing law, said Caroline Peattie, executive director of Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California. She noted that prospective renters would likely be deterred from applying after being told their applications would almost certainly be rejected.

Equity first vice president Marty McKenna said in a statement, “We are proud of our record of providing homes for our residents who qualify for Section 8 vouchers in a region where there is a shortage of affordable housing.” McKenna didn’t respond to an interview request or comment on specific test results Capital & Main shared with the company. “We are confident that we are operating by applicable regulations regarding Section 8 vouchers,” McKenna wrote.

A leasing agent for Santee Court in downtown Los Angeles said they would reject Section 8 tenants based on credit history alone.

(

Barbara Davidson

/

Capital & Main

)

Essex Property Trust

The California-based company, whose board of directors includes former California first lady Anne Gust Brown, appeared to comply with fair housing law at five of nine buildings testers queried.

Capital & Main testers contacted leasing representatives at nine Essex properties, all of whom said they accept Section 8 vouchers. But four of them refused to consider Section 8 voucher holders’ pay stubs or other proof of creditworthiness, even though Essex official policy is to accept such evidence in lieu of credit history. At Essex’s Santee Court in downtown Los Angeles, a leasing representative insisted that a tenant would have to pass a credit check nonetheless, according to a tester’s notes:

(

Capital & Main

)

At the Fountain Park at Playa Vista, an agent said the building would “look at pay stubs and bank statements.” But poor credit, the agent said, would require a “guarantor” — an individual who would take legal responsibility for any unpaid rent.

Essex Property Trust representatives didn’t answer Capital & Main’s questions about their agents’ reliance on credit scores to vet applicants. But a company spokesperson said in a statement, “We have reviewed both our written policy and application process and we are in compliance with the law: all Section 8 applicants are approved based on their ability to pay their portion of the rent, not based on credit score.”

A leasing agent at AVA Toluca Hills said a Section 8 tenant would have to meet the building’s credit score requirements in order to rent an apartment.

A leasing agent at AVA Toluca Hills said a Section 8 tenant would have to meet the building’s credit score requirements in order to rent an apartment.

(

Barbara Davidson

/

Capital & Main

)

AvalonBay Communities

At AvalonBay Communities properties, agents said they accepted Section 8 vouchers, but some representatives of the Arlington, Virginia-based company provided incorrect information about how the program works and described credit requirements that are now prohibited by California law.

At four of the six AvalonBay Communities properties queried, agents said they would reject Section 8 applicants based on credit history. And at one property, representatives didn’t return follow-up calls about credit and income criteria.

Several AvalonBay leasing agents showed a shaky understanding of the Section 8 program, suggesting they have little experience with it. When a tester asked in a phone call last October if there was any alternative way to prove their ability to pay if they failed a credit check, an agent at eaves Los Feliz said no. The credit check was “something we can’t override,” and proving with pay stubs was not an option, the agent said.

In response to a question in a September 2024 phone call about minimum income requirements, an agent at AVA Toluca Hills erroneously responded, “Normally when you have a voucher it’s because you have no income.” (Most Section 8 voucher holders who are able to work do so.) The tester followed up with an email asking “If I failed the credit check, would I be able to prove my ability to pay another way, for example, by showing my check stubs?” The agent responded:

(

Capital & Main

)

AvalonBay representatives didn’t respond to Capital & Main’s interview requests or written questions.

A Leasing agent for Park La Brea, a Los Angeles landmark, said that a credit check was required for Section 8 tenants, an apparent violation of state law.

A Leasing agent for Park La Brea, a Los Angeles landmark, said that a credit check was required for Section 8 tenants, an apparent violation of state law.

(

Barbara Davidson

/

Capital & Main

)

Prime Residential

The San Francisco-based company owns and operates some 20,000 housing units on the West Coast, including the Park La Brea apartments in L.A.’s Miracle Mile, the largest apartment complex west of the Mississippi, with more than 4,000 apartments.

Capital & Main’s hired testers contacted leasing agents at five Prime Residential complexes. All said they accept Section 8 vouchers. At Park La Brea, an agent said in a September 2024 text message that they relied on credit history to screen all applicants:

(

Capital & Main

)

At four other Prime buildings, leasing agents said they didn’t know if credit history would disqualify Section 8 applicants until after credit and background checks were completed.

Prime Residential declined an interview request, but said in a statement, “We work hard to comply with all applicable state and federal fair housing laws, including seeking alternative evidence of ability to pay rent and never denying Section 8 voucher holders based on credit. As part of our efforts to help people take advantage of rental assistance programs, leasing agents and other staff at our properties receive annual training on relevant laws and Prime policies.”

A leasing agent at the Eden apartments in downtown Los Angeles said a Section 8 applicant who failed a credit check would be denied a rental at the building.

(

Barbara Davidson

/

Capital & Main

)

Greystar

Charleston, South Carolina-based Greystar is the largest landlord in the U.S. Leasing agents at all nine Greystar buildings contacted by testers said they accepted Section 8 vouchers. But only two agents said they would consider pay stubs, proof of government benefits or other documents as evidence of a voucher holder’s ability to pay rent. Leasing agents at Desmond didn’t return follow-up calls from a tester inquiring about the building’s credit check requirement. The La Plaza Village, built in partnership with the Cesar Chavez Foundation and managed by Greystar, was built to bring homes to “residents who need them most,” according to a 2019 Chavez Foundation news release. A La Plaza agent said the building didn’t require a specific credit score and that applicants could fail credit checks if their records included evictions or money owed to previous landlords. However, the agent said they would not accept a Section 8 applicant’s alternative evidence of creditworthiness, as this tester’s notes of a September 2024 phone call with a leasing staffer show:

(

Capital & Main

)

At the Eden, in downtown Los Angeles, a leasing agent told a tester in a September 2024 phone call that there was a “waitlist” for Section 8 tenants. However the law prohibits landlords from limiting the number of Section 8 participants in a property. Here’s how the tester recorded it in their notes:

(

Capital & Main

)

A Greystar representative said in a statement, “We remain committed to fair housing practices and to ensuring that all applicants are evaluated consistently and in accordance with the law.” The company provided Capital & Main a copy of a Greystar rental policy document that it says is given to all applicants. The document explains that “in lieu of a credit report, prospective tenants who use housing subsidies in California can show evidence of ability to pay their portion of rent.” The company’s statement said, “While Section 8 vouchers are distinct from the many other affordable housing programs, we understand that depending on how questions are asked, these programs can sometimes be conflated.”

The Medici Apartments near downtown Los Angeles is one of several Palmer buildings where a leasing agents said Section 8 applicants were welcome.

(

Barbara Davidson

/

Capital & Main

)

G.H. Palmer Associates

Geoffrey Palmer, a competitive polo player and a major campaign donor to President Donald Trump, owns G.H. Palmer Associates, based in Beverly Hills. Palmer has built a reputation for hostility toward government housing programs. Nevertheless, his company appeared more welcoming than any other to Section 8 tenants, based on Capital & Main’s test results.

Leasing agents at all seven Palmer properties testers contacted said they accept Section 8 vouchers. They also showed familiarity with the program, and easily answered their questions about minimum income and credit requirements. Still, at one complex, the Riverpark Apartments, a leasing agent said Section 8 applicants could not provide pay stubs in lieu of passing a credit check. In a September 2024 phone call, according to a Capital & Main tester’s notes:

(

Capital & Main

)

Neither Palmer nor members of the company’s executive team responded to Capital & Main’s written questions or a request to discuss the company’s Section 8 policies.

This reporting was supported by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

Annakai Hayakawa Geshlider, Arlen Levy, Jeremy Lindenfeld, Maison Tran, Emily Elena Dugdale and Lita Martinez contributed to this story.

Copyright Capital & Main 2025

A new analysis of alerts sent during the Eaton Fire found “no failure” by emergency officials to issue timely evacuation orders to areas west of Lake Avenue in Altadena.

The timing of alerts to neighborhoods west of Lake, where all but one of 19 deaths in that fire occurred, has been under scrutiny since the January 2025 fire.

The independent report by Citygate Associates was commissioned by the L.A. County Fire Department at the start of this year and was released Monday.

Its conclusions are similar to those of after-action reports from other firms — that officials did the best they could amid unprecedented fire conditions and strained resources.

“While the report provides an honest account of our operations, we recognize that no investigation can truly capture the horror and tragedy residents endured,” said L.A. County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone in a prepared statement. “My focus is to ensure that the lessons learned from the Eaton and Palisades fires are turned into lasting changes that will better protect our residents and neighborhoods into the future.”

Altadena resident Zaire Calvin — whose sister died in the fire and whose own home burned down — said the report feels like another “slap in the face.” He said he wanted to see details on any mistakes that may have been made. But reading the report, he felt blame was once again largely placed on unprecedented fire conditions.

“A  community that's already down, a community that's fighting for their lives, a community that's fighting all of the people trying to take property from them — at some point you just want accountability,” Calvin said.

L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents Altadena, said in a prepared statement that the “investigation should not be interpreted as dismissing the experiences of residents. Public trust requires both accountability and a willingness to learn from every aspect of a disaster response.”

Citygate Associates, which produced an after-action report on the 2018 Woolsey Fire, used interviews, operational records, dispatch records and internal communications to analyze decisionmaking between 9 p.m. on Jan. 7, 2025, and 6 a.m. the following day.

Some of the main findings include the following:

• With aircraft grounded by  high winds, “Incident Command was forced to fight a fire while blind to its movements.” 
• Evacuation decisions were not based on “race, age or socioeconomics.” 
• “Evacuation planners who created the evacuation zone areas well before the fire tried to use, where possible, major north/south and east/west streets. … Thus, Lake Avenue was a natural, very long street that could be utilized as an anchor for creating evacuation zones.” 
• Other fire timeline reviews cite reports of fire moving westward between 11 p.m. and just before midnight, but Citygate staffers write that strained resources were focused on the eastern front of the fire at that time, which was the direction the fire was initially spreading, and that “fire progression maps … do not show the the Eaton Fire directly impacting western neighborhoods at that time.” 
• The fire initially spread westward more slowly, and did not escalate significantly until early in the morning on Jan. 8.
• Reports of fires before 1 a.m. west of Lake Avenue were likely a result of downed power lines.
• By 2 a.m., radio reports indicated embers were being cast deeper into Altadena. 
• Discussions to expand evacuation orders west started at 2:18 a.m., with evacuation orders being sent to residents west of Lake by 3:25 a.m. 
• The main fire front crossed west of Lake Avenue by about 5:15 a.m. 

Find the full report here. 

Huntington Beach must pay $50,000 for each month it continues to fail to comply with the state’s mandate to zone for more housing, according to a recent court ruling. For several years now, the city has been waging a court battle against the state's order to make way for 40,000 new homes.

The judge ruled that the city should be penalized $10,000 per month going back to January 2025, and then fined $50,000 per month, starting next month, until the city gets a compliant housing element approved.

The backstory

State law requires California cities and counties to plan for enough housing to meet the expected demand over an eight-year time period, including for low-income housing. Huntington Beach, citing its independence as a charter city, has fought its most recent housing allocation all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to review the case last year.

Does the state require cities to actually build that many homes?

No. Cities are not required to actually build housing, but rather to make sure their zoning and land use codes accommodate the amount of housing assigned to them through what’s known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).

What does the city say?

In a statement, Casey McKeon, the city’s mayor, said the city “strongly opposes these penalties and will continue fighting for the rights of our residents and for the principle of local control against ongoing efforts by the Attorney General to centralize land use authority in Sacramento.”

Is Huntington Beach an outlier?

Yes. Huntington Beach is an outlier in its aggressive fight against the state housing mandates. More than 90% of California’s 539 jurisdictions are in compliance with the state requirement to plan for the amount of housing assigned to them through the latest RHNA cycle.

What’s next?

The city recently posted draft revisions to its housing plan — for the first time since 2021. That’s significant because the city’s efforts to come into state compliance have been paused for years.

One complication with compliance: Huntington Beach residents voted to require any major changes to the city’s zoning, including its state-mandated housing plan, to be put up for a public vote. That could mean more delays in coming into state compliance, and consequently, more fines, at a time when the city is facing a budget crunch.

During a press conference following a shooting at the San Diego Islamic Center, San Diego Police Department Chief Scott Wahl confirmed three adult victims at the center and the two suspects are dead.

Police said the suspects were found dead in the vehicle nearby. They were 17 and 19 years old. The motivation behind the shooting is unknown at this time.

Wahl said in 28 years, this is the most dynamic and impressive response he's seen in policing with help coming from agencies all over the county.

Imam of the Islamic Center of San Diego Taha Hassane said the center stands in solidarity "with all of the families in our community here and all the mosques and places of worship" in San Diego.

"This is something that we never expected, and I would also like to thank all the people who contacted us from all over the country and overseas to offer their condolences."

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria was also present at the news conference.

"We will do anything it takes to make sure you feel safe in this city," Gloria said.

In a statement, the Council on American-Islamic Relations-San Diego Executive Director Tazheen Nizam said:

“We strongly condemn this horrifying act of violence at the Islamic Center of San Diego. Our thoughts are with everyone impacted by this attack. No one should ever fear for their safety while attending prayers or studying at an elementary school. We are working to learn more about this incident and we encourage everyone to keep this community in your prayers."

The active shooter situation was reported at 11:43 a.m. at ICSD in the 7000 block of Eckstrom Avenue in Clairemont, according to SDPD.

The department is asking people to avoid the area.

A reunification location for those impacted by the incident has been established at 4125 Hathaway Street.

According to our news partner ABC 10News, authorities shut down northbound and southbound Interstate 805 at Balboa Avenue due to the law enforcement activity.

The San Diego Unified School District confirmed several campuses were placed on lock down. SDUSD spokesperson James Canning said lockdowns are gradually being lifted but schools closest to the Islamic Center will be the last to have their lockdowns lifted.

The Islamic Center is the largest mosque in San Diego County. The center holds five daily prayers.

In California’s upcoming June primary election, you’ll have the opportunity to cast your ballot for any of the candidates for governor, regardless of which party you’re registered with. The top two vote-getters advance to the general election.

Known as a “jungle primary,” this system is different from how most states handle their primary elections.

This year, Democrats raised the alarm that two Republican gubernatorial candidates may move to the general election, locking out Democrats despite outnumbering Republican registered voters almost two to one. That’s because the crowded field of Democratic candidates threatens to split the party’s vote. Until recently, multiple polls have shown the two Republicans, former Fox News host Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, polling at the top of the race.

Driven in part by these concerns, critics of the top-two primary have now filed a ballot initiative that would repeal this system and return California to party-based primaries, potentially as early as 2030.

But how does this top-two arrangement work? Why does California do things this way? And what are the chances of voters choosing between two GOP candidates for governor in November?

How does California’s top-two primary system work?

In a traditional closed primary, such as in presidential races, voters can only choose among candidates from their own party: That is, say, registered Democrats could only vote for Democratic candidates.

But in a top-two primary, all candidates from all parties appear on a single ballot open to any registered voter. The two candidates with the most votes in that primary then move on to the general election, even if they’re from the same party.

Kim Alexander, president and founder of the California Voter Foundation, said this is an even bigger concern for third parties in the state.

“One of the unfortunate byproducts” of California’s jungle primary system, Alexander said, is how “it’s really shut out a lot of minor parties from the general election and they run the risk of being kicked off the ballot altogether.”

“Because if you don’t have candidates appearing on ballots at a certain pace, then you can’t remain an official party,” she said.

Does this really mean Californians might not get a Republican vs. Democrat race for governor in November?

That’s correct: Under the top-two primary system, the November contest could be an intraparty fight.

That scenario has worried many California Democrats. With seven top Democrats crowding the field, there’s a risk of fracturing their party’s vote. Meanwhile, if enough Republican voters back both Hilton and Bianco to push them both into the top two, California could be locked into an all-Republican general election for governor.

Steve Hilton, Republican gubernatorial candidate for California, left, and Tom Steyer, Democratic gubernatorial candidate for California, fist-bump prior to a gubernatorial debate at KRON Studios in San Francisco, California, on April 22, 2026. California will hold its primary election on June 2, where the top two finishers advance to the general election in November regardless of party affiliation. (Jason Henry/Nexstar via Bloomberg)In March, state Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks urged politicians in his party to take a hard look at the viability of their campaigns and drop out before the filing deadline.

“California’s leadership on the world stage is significantly harder if a Democrat is not elected as our next Governor,” Hicks wrote in an open letter.

None of the contenders heeded his plea.

However, the likelihood of Republicans shutting Democrats out of the November election has decreased since President Donald Trump endorsed Hilton in April. A clear front-runner could unify Republican voters behind Hilton and open the door for a Democrat to claim the second spot in the runoff.

Plus, the most recent Emerson poll now shows former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra in the lead with 19% of likely voters for the first time in the race. Hilton and Democrat Tom Steyer are tied for second with 17%.

Becerra’s surge came after former East Bay Rep. Eric Swalwell — who was regarded as a front-runner for the gubernatorial primary — exited the race last month amid sexual assault and misconduct allegations.

Why does California have this top-two system?

Historically, California required a two-thirds vote in the Legislature to pass the state budget instead of a simple majority vote.

In 2009, Democrats needed to court Republican votes to pass the state budget. Then-state Sen. Abel Maldonado, a Republican, agreed to vote yes — but only if the Legislature put a measure on the ballot to create the top-two primary system.

Voters approved that measure, Proposition 14, in 2010, amending the state constitution.

Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger backed the measure as a way to transform state politics, forcing candidates to appeal to voters across party lines and ultimately boost more moderate politicians.

“He liked to talk about living in a post-partisan political climate,” Alexander said. “He liked the idea of candidates having to appeal to more voters than just voters of their own party, and to face competition.”

The system was also designed to give more influence to California’s no party preference voters, who make up 23% of registered voters in the state, just behind Republicans at 25%.

Which political offices in California are decided using this system?

The top-two primary applies to “voter-nominated” offices: governor and other statewide positions like lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state treasurer, state controller, insurance commissioner and state board of equalization members.

It also covers state Senate and Assembly seats and U.S. congressional offices.

The jungle primary system does not apply to presidential elections, local and nonpartisan offices such as city council, school boards, judges, district attorneys or the superintendent of public instruction.

Which other states use this system?

Washington state was the first to adopt a top-two primary for congressional and state-level elections in 2004, but not for governor.

Unlike California, Washington allows write-in candidates in the general election — a safety valve for scenarios where one party is locked out.

A handful of other states use variations of the system. Nebraska’s legislature is nonpartisan, so it uses a top-two primary for state legislative races.

Louisiana uses a majority-vote system for statewide executive offices, state legislative seats and local offices. If a candidate receives a majority of the vote in the primary, they win outright. If not, there is a second round of voting with the top two vote-getters in November.

Alaska adopted a top-four primary in 2020 for state executive, state legislative and congressional races. An effort to repeal the state’s top-four primaries was narrowly defeated by voters in 2024 but will be on the ballot again this year.

If I’m a ‘no party preference’ voter, can I even vote in the California primary?

Yes: Any registered voter, including those with no party preference, can vote for any candidate in voter-nominated races like the governor’s contest.

The top-two primary system draws no distinction based on a voter’s party registration.

Are there any efforts to get rid of California’s jungle primary?

Driven in part by concerns that Democrats could be locked out of this year’s governor’s race, a new ballot initiative seeks to repeal California’s top-two primary system.

Democratic strategist Steven Maviglio filed the initiative, called “Undo the Top Two,” with the attorney general on May 8.
He called the jungle primary a “failed experiment.”

“The prospect of having to vote for a candidate who’s not from your party in November has really woken up a lot of voters in the state about the dangers of the top-two primary,” Maviglio said. “The chance that a Democrat would have to choose between Chad Bianco or Steve Hilton is sending a chill up the spine of a lot of Democrats.”

However, even if successful, Maviglio’s initiative won’t impact the 2026 election — since he hopes to place the measure on the 2028 ballot, with any changes taking effect no earlier than the 2030 elections.