The Brief

With just 12,000 votes still to count in all of L.A. County, most races have become clear. In the seven primary races for L.A. City Council, we can now say we will see at least three runoffs on the November ballot.

LAist has been delivering a special limited-run newsletter on results. Here's an excerpt from the latest write-up:

Who’s moving on to the general election?

Districts 2, 10 and 14 will go to a runoff in November.

• In District 2, former state Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian (37%) will face neighborhood councilmember Jillian Burgos (22%). 
• In District 14, tenant rights attorney Ysabel Jurado is in first place with 24.5% of the vote. She leads the current councilmember, Kevin de León (23.4%).
  
  • Both Jurado and Burgos are progressive candidates who saw late surges of support come in during the final rounds of ballot counting. 
• In District 10, incumbent Heather Hutt (38%) will go up against attorney Grace Yoo (23%). Yoo has run for this seat several times in the past, but lost to Mark Ridley Thomas and Herb Wesson. 
  
  • The progressive candidates in this race, Eddie Anderson and Aura Vásquez, came in third and fourth place, respectively, and Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer ended up in fifth.

Who’s keeping their seat?

These three candidates won their seats outright by getting more than 50% of the vote. All three were already on the city council, so you’re unlikely to see many changes in council decision making.

• District 6’s Imelda Padilla – 78% of the vote
• District 8’s Marqueece Harris Dawson – 78% of the vote 
• District 12’s John Lee – 62% of the vote

What about District 4?

Nithya Raman passed the 50% threshold needed to win outright yesterday and inched up a little higher in the Wednesday vote release, but she’s above the threshold by a very slim margin. Since there’s no way to know how many of the remaining ballots are in District 4 or who they’re for, we still can’t say how this will play out.

A race that appeared tight on election night now has incumbent Nithya Raman in the clear lead. The big question: Does she stay above 50% to retain the seat outright?

(

Erin Hauer

/

LAist

)

A note on the results

Tracking your ballot

You can track the status of your ballot:

• L.A. County

If your mail-in ballot is rejected for any reason (like a missing or mismatched signature), your county registrar must contact you to give you a chance to fix it. In Los Angeles County, the registrar will send you a notification by mail and you have until March 27 to reply and "cure" your ballot.

How we're covering this election

Ask us a question

In recent years, some Southern California cities have tried a new approach to softening the blow of large rent hikes. When landlords raised rents beyond what tenants could afford, cities required them to give those tenants thousands of dollars in relocation assistance.

But that strategy had one major problem. According to recent court decisions, it was illegal.

Following legal victories by landlord groups, the cities of L.A. and Pasadena have deleted guidance about those relocation payments from their websites and officials are no longer enforcing the requirement.

Whitney Prout, who works on legal affairs for the California Apartment Association, said the landlord advocacy group successfully argued that Pasadena's requirement illegally imposed heavy costs on landlords who raised rents to levels allowed by state law.

“It was a consequence that was imposed for exercising a legal right,” Prout said. “That is effectively the same as limiting the right that exists. And you're not allowed to do that.”

No more payments to ‘cushion the blow’

A California appellate court ruled in December 2025 that Pasadena’s relocation requirement due to rent hikes was illegal. In April, the California Supreme Court declined to review the decision. A separate case brought against L.A. later used the Pasadena case as precedent to strike down a similar requirement in that city.

Tenant advocates said the decisions mean that renters getting pushed out of their homes by large rent hikes will now have to shoulder the cost of finding new housing entirely on their own.

“It was a new attempt to protect tenants that wasn't as legally tried and tested,” said Ryan Bell, a coordinator with Tenants Together and a member of the Pasadena Rental Housing Board. “The idea was to help cushion the blow of displacement. And now that doesn't exist anymore.”

Who was getting relocation aid?

Pasadena’s relocation requirement was created by Measure H, the November 2022 ballot initiative that nearly 54% of voters passed to implement rent control and eviction protections.

Pasadena landlords would have to pay relocation assistance if they increased rents by more than 5% plus the amount of the city’s current rent control cap. Today, that limit would be 7.25%. If tenants informed their landlords that they could not afford increases above that amount, they would be entitled to relocation payments.

The protection wasn’t designed for Pasadena tenants living in rent-controlled apartments. Landlords cannot legally raise rents that much in units covered by those caps.

Instead, the relocation payments were geared toward tenants living in other kinds of housing not covered by local limits, such as single-family homes, condos and apartments built after Feb. 1, 1995.

A separate state law caps annual rent increases — currently at 8% in L.A. County — in many homes not subject to local rent control caps. But not all housing is covered by that state law.

Relocation payments still required in some cases

Though landlords no longer need to pay relocation fees when tenants are pushed out by large rent hikes, they still must pay tenants who are evicted through no fault of their own, such as in cases where landlords want to move a family member into the tenant’s unit.

The amount of relocation assistance Pasadena requires landlords to pay varies based on how many bedrooms the unit had, how long a tenant lived there, and the tenant’s age, parental status and disabilities. The payments range from $8,340 to $40,210.

The rules have worked similarly in the city of L.A., where relocation payments currently range from one month’s worth of rent up to $27,400. The rule requiring relocation payments due to “economic displacement” was created by the City Council in 2023 as the city began ramping down its COVID-19 pandemic tenant protections.

What’s changing now

Santa Monica has also required relocation payments in situations where tenants can’t afford large rent hikes. The city still lists that requirement in online documents. LAist reached out to city officials to ask if they have changed their approach to enforcing the requirement in light of recent court rulings. We did not receive a response.

In guidance on tenant protections published this month, the city of L.A. dropped information about relocation payments triggered by rent hikes. Pasadena officials removed details about the rent-hike relocation rules after LAist asked if they planned to drop the requirement, which was still described in detail on the city’s website earlier this week.

Prout, the California Apartment Association legal affairs expert, said the changes will be welcome news for landlords who felt blindsided when the rules first took effect a few years ago.

Many, she said, “were very surprised to learn that — despite the fact that they were not rent controlled — if they increased the rent more than the city wanted them to, they were facing a pretty significant potential financial consequence.”

A nonprofit law firm has created a resource to teach people who are in custody at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, or at the neighboring Desert View Annex, how to challenge their detainment.

Available in English and in Spanish, the information packet walks immigrant detainees through the process of filling out their own petitions for habeas corpus.

“Habeas corpus” means “you have the body” in Latin. In the U.S., this writ refers to a judicial order that forces authorities to bring the person they’ve detained before a federal district court and justify their continued confinement.

This provision — enshrined in Section 9 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution — is a safeguard against arbitrary imprisonment.

Immigrant Defenders Law Center created its resource for people who meet two criteria:

1. The petitioner has an open case in immigration court or a pending appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals.
2. The petitioner was previously detained and released by immigrant officials. 

Once immigrant officials release a detainee — once they decide that the person in question is not dangerous and does not pose a flight risk — “they can't just arrest you again without proof of any change in circumstance,” said Sarah Houston, managing attorney of the law firm’s rapid response team.

An LAist investigation recently found that more immigrants are being held in detention without bond, and the increase in denials is steepest at Adelanto. Plus, given reports of unsanitary and unsafe conditions at Adelanto, along with a surge in deaths at ICE detention facilities across the country, Houston said her team is acting out of a sense of urgency.

“We don't want anyone to sit in detention for months and months, when they could potentially be drafting this and getting out,” she said.

How this resource helps immigrant detainees

Immigrant Defenders Law Center is based in downtown L.A. Each week, their attorneys make the trek to the long-term detention facilities in Adelanto, out in the Mojave desert.

“We have a great network [of pro bono and low bono lawyers],” Houston said, “but there is no way we have enough attorneys to meet the needs of [scores of detainees].”

At the same time, she added, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California was getting inundated with petitions for habeas corpus — so much so that it made a form for detainees who opt to represent themselves. In the legal world, self-representation is referred to as “pro se.”

Meanwhile, Houston and her team kept hearing about people who’d been re-detained at Adelanto. In response, they created their resource for these “pro se” litigants.

The nonprofit’s 24-page resource contains detailed instructions on how to file a petition for habeas corpus, but it’s meant to be uncomplicated, Houston said. When creating it, the law firm’s goal was to “make it as clear as possible,” while mitigating the possibility that petitioners might make a mistake.

Before sharing the resource widely, the law firm identified one detainee for a test case. A judge decided the government was holding that person in custody illegally. Then, another detainee used the resource to secure his release and that of five others, Houston said.

Now, when her team goes to Adelanto, they take packets of the resource with them to distribute widely among detainees.

“Our clients are so intelligent and so resourceful, and they will do anything to go back to their families,” she said. “Our job is to give them as much information as possible for them to be able to draft the best habeas.”

What happens if a petitioner makes an error?  

Even with detailed instructions, Houston acknowledged, detainees who file habeas corpus petitions “sometimes do make mistakes.” As a result, their petition might get rejected, forcing the detainee to refile. But in Houston’s experience, courts tend to be more lenient when people are representing themselves.

“If it's a minor error, they'll just go forward with it,” she said.

Under the second Trump administration, petitions for habeas corpus have skyrocketed.

A ProPublica report found that immigrants filed more of these petitions in the first 13 months of the second Trump administration than in the past three administrations combined — including President Donald Trump’s first. In parts of California and Texas, these petitions have been especially prevalent.

Houston underscored that the resource her team created is specifically geared at people who are both detained at Adelanto and who meet the criteria she outlined.

Habeas corpus is “so complicated that you can't make a resource like this for every type of person,” she said. “We wanted to start off where we know exactly what the case law is, where it's pretty clear cut.”

The law firm is currently working on translating the resource, to ensure it’s available to immigrants who speak other languages.

After 25 years of anticipation, the Burbank Public Library opened a time capsule monument only to find…nothing.

They were expecting to come across a collection of memories from 2001, when the monument was last opened. But the capsule was never created. And library officials don’t know why.

“It's a fun little mystery we got going on,” said Kathleen Zapata, marketing analyst for the Burbank Public Library. “Instead, we found the original time capsule that was placed in 1976 by the Burbank Bicentennial Committee who started off this whole time capsule project to begin with.”

The 2001 time capsule was never created, and library officials say they aren't sure why.

(

Courtesy of Burbank Public Library

)

The monument has four compartments, and while it says it was sealed in 1977, the original time capsule contents are from 1976.

(

Makenna Cramer

/

LAist

)

In 1976, the committee built a monument in front of the Central Library for four time capsules, according to officials. The idea was to open a time capsule, and add another into the monument, every 25 years for the next century.

But wires got crossed somewhere along the way. Zapata noted the committee’s instructions were “a bit vague.”

“Potentially, the 2001 crew just thought maybe that we were supposed to open the 1976 [capsule] every 25 years to maybe admire it? I don't know,” she said.

The library is now working on a 2026 time capsule for future generations — and officials want to hear from you.

Keeping up the tradition

Zapata said the new time capsule should represent life in Burbank today. They’re specifically looking for small, non-perishable items that will stand the test of time (and weather).

It could include movie tickets from all three of the city's AMCs. Or a yellow Porto’s Bakery bag. Or furniture instructions from Ikea, which Burbank boasts as the largest in the U.S.

“If anyone has an item that they could even donate to the time capsule, that would be fantastic,” she said. “We're open to absolutely any ideas that folks have … we hope that the community can join us in this collective brainstorm.”

For example, the original time capsule included photos of the committee who started the program, a book of utility rates that showed what people were paying for water and electricity decades ago and a menu from a long-closed restaurant.

The items were a blast from the past, including a telephone book and utility rates book that showed what people were paying for electricity and water decades ago.

(

Courtesy Burbank Public Library

)

The Burbank Bicentennial Committee kicked off the generational project.

(

Courtesy Burbank Public Library

)

A few photos of Burbank residents in the 1970s were tucked away in the time capsule.

(

Courtesy Burbank Public Library

)

The first time capsule was from 1976 and included items that represented the area at the time, including a nearby JCPenney.

(

Courtesy Burbank Public Library

)

You can submit ideas to the library’s form here through September.

Zapata is also hoping that anyone who knows why the last capsule was skipped will come forward and cue the library in, too.

What happens next?

Once complete, the library will put both the 2026 and 1976 time capsules safely in storage until its new Central Library location is built.

The new branch, which Burbank got a $9.95 million grant for a few years ago, is expected to open in 2029, according to Zapata.

You can find more information about the project and share feedback here.

If you want to see the original time capsule in person before then, the items will be on display at an open house later this year. Zapata said you'll be able to find the time and date on the library's website once those details are finalized.

A federal judge on Thursday ordered major changes to reported conditions at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in San Bernardino County, granting a preliminary injunction that requires federal immigration officials provide people with clean drinking water and adequate medical care.

U.S. District Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes ruled that the detainees who brought the lawsuit “demonstrated they are likely to prevail” on their claims that conditions at the facility violate Fifth Amendment protections against inhumane conditions of confinement. While the case will continue to work its way through the courts, the judge issued the ruling now, finding that people being detained could suffer irreparable harm without court intervention.

The suit came after two deaths at the facility within weeks of each other last fall: Ismael Ayala-Uribe, a 39-year-old former DACA recipient, and 56-year-old Gabriel Garcia-Aviles. Both deaths are still under federal investigation as scrutiny over the conditions inside immigrant detention centers in the Trump administration continues to mount.

In their lawsuit, lawyers for the detainees said Adelanto violated ICE detention guidelines by failing to provide clean drinking water, nutritious meals, sanitation, access to medical care and medicine, as well as medical intake screening upon arrival at the facility. They also alleged violations of rules around recreation time outside, visitation time for family, daily headcount to ensure detainees are alive, and accommodations for people with disabilities.

In response, Sykes ordered 24-hour access to clean drinking water, meals with a sufficient number of calories, and access to soap and hygiene products free of charge. The injunction also requires the facility to be cleansed daily and for mold to be identified and removed. Detainees are to be provided blankets and temperature-appropriate clothing, as well as access to recreational yard time outside for at least four hours every day.

The order prevents Adelanto, which is located about 90 miles northeast of Los Angeles, from limiting family visitation during regular business hours, including removing time restrictions and physical contact, such as hugging or holding hands, with family members. It also says the facility can not cancel a visitation if a family member needs to use the restroom during the visit.

The majority of people being held in immigration detention centers in California have not been accused of committing crimes, only of civil immigration violations.

The court ordered Adelanto to perform at least two headcounts every day, once overnight and once during the day, to ensure detainees are present and not incapacitated. The court also ordered restrictions on sending detainees to isolation, barring a life safety risk to staff or if the detainee requests it.

The ruling requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other named defendants to immediately provide detainees with the condition upgrades the judge ordered.

The Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the ruling. DHS attorney Pushkal Mishra argued in court last week the federal government couldn’t be held liable for the actions of its contractor, GEO Group, which runs Adelanto and 18 other immigration facilities around the country.

In a motion to dismiss the case, DHS argued that it should not have “to take over the daily management of a federal contract from a private contractor.”

GEO Group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Disability access in ICE facilities has been a recurring issue since the Trump administration took office for a second term. According to the complaint, one person described being placed in handcuffs and ankle chains for court appearances despite using a cane. Others alleged people with mobility issues were routinely assigned top bunks. The new court order requires the government to provide people with disabilities with reasonable accommodations.

The court has given the federal government 14 days to create a plan to address medical care and disability needs for detainees. The order requires all detainees to be given an intake screening upon arriving for physical or mental illnesses, ensure ongoing treatment and medication, and treat and segregate detainees to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. The order also mandates that every detainee must have access to primary, secondary, and tertiary medical care and be advised of their patient rights.

Sykes ordered that the government must provide two independent monitors for the duration of the lawsuit to ensure compliance with the court orders. Detainees must also be given the opportunity to submit grievances to the monitors in English or Spanish that are contained in a lockbox only accessible to the monitors.

A report by the California attorney general this year found that six people have died in detention facilities in the state since the start of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. Nationwide, 22 people have died this year in immigration detention.

This week, the Mexican federal government called on state attorneys general to criminally investigate cases where Mexican nationals have died in ICE custody.