Reps. Katie Porter, Adam Schiff and Barbara Lee (from left) during a U.S. Senate candidate forum hosted by the National Union of Health Care Workers in Los Angeles on Oct. 8, 2023.
(
Richard Vogel
/
AP Photo
)
Topline:
The five major contenders have different track records and proposals on some of the biggest issues facing California. They’re trying to position themselves to appeal to sizable voting blocs before the March 5 primary.
But their ads, slogans and speeches offer only a glimpse into who they are, or what they have done — or plan to do — to tackle some of Californians’ most pressing concerns. All three Democrats have years of voting records while serving in Congress.
All but Early are set to debate for the first time in this race on Monday evening. Ahead of the event, CalMatters sent each campaign a questionnaire and analyzed their records and stances on issues such as border, immigration, criminal justice, foreign policy, economy, labor and housing.
Here’s a detailed look at where they stand on those issues — and how they differ from each other:
Border and immigration
The three Democrats share a similar track record on immigration and border security issues.
All support expanding unemployment insurance benefits to undocumented immigrants seeking work.
At a November immigration forum, all three Democrats criticized President Joe Biden’s policy that banned most migrants from seeking asylum if they crossed the border illegally. Porter said the policy was “dishonoring this nation’s history and our future.” Schiff and Lee both called it “wrong.”
Lee, Schiff and Porter all agreed a generic border wall is ineffective in response to CalMatters’ questionnaire this month. Schiff and Porter both advocated for increased use of detection technologies at the border.
Porter, however, said some “site-specific” barriers do work, “for example, in dangerous areas where the lives of migrants and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel are at risk when there are unauthorized crossings and search and rescue missions.”
Migrants stay in a makeshift camp in Jacumba Hot Springs in San Diego on Nov. 18, 2023.
(
Adriana Heldiz
/
CalMatters
)
Of the three Democrats, Lee appears to be the most staunch critic of allocating more funds to federal border patrol agencies.
Lee called for a 50% budget cut for the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol in statements to CalMatters. Funding for the Department of Homeland Security, she said, would be better spent on “meaningful immigration reform.”
“ICE is rotten to the core,” Lee said in response to the CalMatters questionnaire. She is the only Senate candidate to have voted against creating the agency in 2002, when Schiff — then in his first term — supported it.
Porter told CalMatters she generally does not support additional funding for the agency, but said she wants border patrol employees to “receive pay commensurate with their work” to help “recruit a workforce that can meet the needs of our border communities.”
Schiff said Congress should provide aid to border communities and increase resources and personnel at ports of entry to help handle an influx of asylum seekers.
The top two Republicans — Garvey and Early — both support the border wall, additional funding for border patrol agents and tightened restrictions on border entries. Both said the nation should prioritize immigration applications from people legally present in the United States and both oppose offering undocumented immigrants unemployment benefits.
Early argued he supports a path to citizenship for “illegal immigrants who have enlisted in and participated honorably in our military.” Currently, non-citizens can only join the military if they are legal permanent residents, but a Democrats-backed bill in Congress would allow undocumented DREAMers to serve in the military.
Garvey and Early’s campaigns called for more funding for police departments and law enforcement officers, as well as the need to secure the southern border.
All three Democrats support boosting funding for mental health treatment programs. Lee — arguing poverty is the root cause of crime — believes raising the minimum wage, expanding access to healthcare and legalizing marijuana will address the “structural problems” that lead to criminal acts, her campaign says.
Porter’s campaign championed her Mental Health Justice Act — a 2022 bill to give grants to governments to recruit and train mental health professionals to respond to emergency calls. Schiff and Lee both voted for the measure.
Garvey’s campaign said he also supports funding to treat mental health problems and drug addiction, arguing they often contribute to gun violence and homelessness. Early, via a campaign spokesperson, advocated for a “rebuild” of the nation’s mental health system “that allows for the severely mentally ill to be permanently housed and cared for,” arguing that services were “decimated” in the 1960s — when people were discharged from institutions and placed in community-based care centers amid the civil rights movement.
Gunsmith Don Gregory shows off two new single-action firearms recently released by Juggernaut Tactical in Orange on Thursday, Sept. 21, 2023. Photo by Alisha Jucevic for CalMatters
(
Alisha Jucevic
/
CalMatters
)
On gun policies, Garvey supports “common-sense measures” such as pre-sale background checks and an assault weapon ban — something mainly supported by Democrats, according to his campaign. “We can keep guns out of the hands of criminals while also protecting Second Amendment rights,” his campaign said in a response to CalMatters’ questions.
The candidates are otherwise split along party lines. For example, all three Democrats oppose the federal death penalty, while Republicans argue the opposite.
But there are nuanced differences, especially among Democrats. They all voted against legislation to permanently raise fentanyl-related drugs to the highest class of illegal substances — a GOP-led bill Biden urged Congress to pass. Lee, however, was the only candidate to vote against even temporarily doing so.
Schiff — a former prosecutor in Los Angeles — has the most controversial track record on criminal justice issues due to his past support for tough-on-crime policies.
Schiff was among 48 Democrats to support the Thin Blue Line Act in 2017 to apply the federal death penalty to cop killers — something Early supports. Schiff has since publicly spoken against the sentence. In his campaign response to CalMatters, Schiff credited his change of heart to “technological advancements” that revealed “deep flaws” with the death penalty and a “disproportionate application” of the sentence on people of color.
As a state senator, Schiff authored legislation to crack down on juveniles, including a bill to create year-long “boot camps” for teenagers found in possession of marijuana at school and another to try kids 14 years and older as adults if they commit murder or rape.
In Congress, he introduced legislation in 2009 to increase funding to a controversial program to place more cops in communities, supported language to exclude asylum seekers and immigrants from privacy protections and voted for the Protect and Serve Act in 2018 to impose stricter penalties on assaulting law enforcement officers, which most Democrats voted for. Lee voted against both measures.
Schiff’s record irked criminal justice activists, who in a 2021 letter urged Gov. Gavin Newsom not to appoint Schiff as the next state attorney general. He has since softened some of his positions on criminal justice. In February 2023, he said his viewpoint had changed since the 1990s. “I’ve learned that some of the policies of the 90s didn’t work,” he told ABC7 last year.
Foreign policy and defense
The issue of a ceasefire in the Gaza war highlights a key split among the three Democratic hopefuls.
A day after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, Lee called for a permanent ceasefire from the stage of a Senate candidate debate — one of the first members of Congress to do so. Schiff called for “unequivocal support” for Israel, while Porter cautioned against Islamophobia and mourned the lives lost on both sides.
For months afterward, as the casualty numbers rose in Gaza, Schiff and Porter both called for a “humanitarian pause” — aligning with the Biden administration’s policy. But as calls for a permanent ceasefire grew, Porter shifted her stance in a Dec. 18 statement, calling for a “lasting bilateral ceasefire” that “brings remaining hostages home, secures Israel’s safety, removes Hamas from operational control of Gaza, and invests in creating a better economic and political architecture for Palestinians in Gaza.”
When asked to explain why she shifted her stance, Porter’s campaign pointed to her Dec. 18 statement, in which she seemed to suggest Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rejection of Palestinian governance of Gaza was the reason.
“His remarks and actions necessitate tough conversations with our ally Israel about its long-term strategy and among U.S. policymakers about our approach in the Middle East,” she said in the statement.
Schiff, however, has stood by his initial position, arguing that a permanent ceasefire would “perpetuate Hamas terrorist control of Gaza,” according to his campaign.
All three Democrats signed on as co-sponsors of a largely symbolic bipartisan House resolution affirming Israel’s right to defend itself. But Lee was the only candidate to vote against the Hamas International Financing Prevention Act — a bipartisan bill that would sanction Hamas, its affiliates and governments providing aid to the group.
“The bill was opposed by major humanitarian organizations because it is overly broad and will hurt a lot of innocent Palestinians by making it harder if not impossible to receive humanitarian assistance,” Lee spokesperson Sean Ryan told CalMatters in an email.
An Israeli battle tank moves along the border between the Gaza Strip and southern Israel on Wednesday as battles between Israel and Hamas continue.
(
Jack Guez
/
AFP via Getty Images
)
Decades before Gaza, Lee shocked the world by being the lone vote against the Afghanistan war after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a decision that got her death threats then but now hailed as a show of courage by her supporters.
Lee is still somewhat of a unicorn on foreign policy compared to her opponents.
In 2002, Lee voted against authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, while Schiff voted in favor. Lee has since sponsored a resolution to repeal the authorization most years; it wasn’t until 2021 that the House passed it, with Schiff and Porter both voting in favor.
Lee was also the only candidate to support a U.S. troop removal from Syria in March 2023 — a measure most Democrats, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, voted against. Critics of the bill said a removal could give Islamic State terrorists time to reorganize, the Associated Press reported.
Additionally, Lee touts herself as the most consistent in calling for cutting the nation’s “bloated” defense budget. She has voted against authorizing defense and military spending when Schiff and Porter voted in favor, voting records show.
Schiff’s campaign said he wants to reduce the Pentagon’s budget by 10% and supports eliminating weapons systems the administration does not need or want. “There is far too much waste in the defense budget that must be eliminated,” his campaign said.
Porter’s campaign said the funding level needs to be indexed to national security threats and there needs to be more oversight. “I’ll never rubber stamp spending, but I believe investing in our servicemembers and their well-being is paramount,” the campaign said.
Both Republicans support increasing the defense budget. Neither Garvey nor Early supported a call for a ceasefire. They both argued Israel must have the ability to fight Hamas until it is destroyed, their campaigns said.
Economy and labor
Although far lower than during the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation remains high, jumping from 3.1% to 3.4% in December. Experts attribute it to the rising cost of housing, and project it’s unlikely to last given a housing market cool-down, NBC reported.
Republican candidates blame the Biden administration. Garvey attributed it to “excessive government spending” while Early criticized the reduction of domestic energy production — a GOP talking point that conflicts with record-high U.S. oil production in October.
Democrats slam corporations instead. Porter — a self-proclaimed warrior taking on Wall Street interests — argued inflation worsened because businesses are overcharging customers, pointing to record-high profits for big corporations. Similarly, Lee blamed corporate greed. Apart from corporate profit, Schiff pointed to the supply chain interruption during the pandemic and a lack of housing as contributing factors.
Among the three Democrats, Schiff — a past member of the centrist Blue Dog Coalition — has historically been the most skeptical of federal spending. In 2005, he demanded a “rainy-day” reserve in the budget.
Schiff is the only Senate candidate to vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling last year to avoid a default. Lee and Porter — along with 38 other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus — voted against it. Lee said she voted to stand up against “extreme MAGA Republicans holding our economy hostage,” and Porter — who has argued the debt ceiling should be abolished — criticized the measure for including “giveaways” to the oil and gas industry, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Schiff, who applied to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus last year but withdrew, voted multiple times against the “People’s Budget” — which contains all the caucus’ priorities and which has served as a purity test. Lee — the only other candidate in Congress at the time — voted in favor.
Construction workers on site of a tiny homes village in Goshen on June 2, 2023. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local
(
Larry Valenzuela
/
CalMatters/CatchLight Local
)
All three Democrats have gained union endorsements, although Schiff has won the most from statewide unions. All the Democrats support the Protecting the Right to Organize Act to override all state right-to-work laws and strengthen union protections. Garvey and Early both said that the decision belongs to states, not the federal government, according to their campaigns.
The five candidates also split along party lines on whether striking workers should be eligible for unemployment benefits — a controversial bill vetoed by Gov. Newsom last year. All three Democrats said those workers deserve the benefits. Early outright said no, while Garvey’s campaign told CalMatters that governments should stay out of disputes between unions and businesses.
All three Democrats believe the federal minimum wage — $7.25 per hour — should increase.
Porter’s campaign said she supports a $20 federal minimum wage and $25 for California, indexed to inflation. Schiff’s campaign said he supports a $20 federal minimum wage indexed to inflation, with a boost to $25 for health care workers.
Early believes the federal rate does not need to change and that an increase would worsen inflation, according to his campaign.
Garvey, on the other hand, did not give a specific number. “Each state and its voters have the ability to raise their minimum wage, as California has multiple times, beyond the federal minimum wage,” his campaign said.
Homelessness and housing
On California’s worsening homelessness crisis, Republican candidates say mental health problems are the main culprit — not the lack of affordable housing.
Early, in his campaign’s response to CalMatters’ questions, said the cause of the state’s homelessness is “severe mental illness” and “soft-on-crime” policies, referring to Proposition 47 — a ballot measure passed in 2014 that reduced penalties for certain thefts and drug offenses.
“The biggest factor is manifestly not insufficient low-income housing,” the campaign’s statement read.
Garvey’s campaign said the biggest driving factors of the problem are “drug and alcohol addiction” and “mental health issues.” During a Wednesday visit to a Sacramento homeless encampment, he said he wants a “deep dive” into how taxpayer dollars are spent to battle the homelessness crisis.
An unidentified person carries a blanket along Alvarado Street in Los Angeles.
(
David Swanson
/
Getty Images
)
But the Democratic candidates all argued a lack of affordable housing is driving the crisis.
The homelessness problem is a “direct result” of failed federal housing policies over the past decades, Porter argues on her website. Her campaign said she supports a “major investment” in housing, including a fully-funded federal Section 8 program and an expansion of the national Low Income Housing Tax Credit.
Lee’s campaign said homelessness is a housing issue “at its core.” Like Porter, she also called for a fully-funded Section 8 program and a national rent control standard — one that the Biden administration has pushed for. She believes expanding health care access, offering free college and raising the minimum wage would help ease homelessness in the state, her campaign said. She also touted legislation she introduced to help renters, such as the DEPOSIT Act, which would allow federal programs to cover security deposit and moving expenses for those using the Housing Choice vouchers.
Similarly, Schiff’s campaign said he also supports expanding Section 8 vouchers and providing wraparound services. Additionally, his campaign stressed the importance of easing regulations and offering tax incentives to encourage the build-out of affordable housing — something Garvey and Early also support.
On Schiff’s campaign website, he touted legislation he introduced and supported to fight homelessness, including the Affordable and Homeless Housing Incentive Act, which would offer tax incentives for homeless shelters.
Asked if they support more federal funding to combat the crisis, only Early’s campaign said no. Garvey’s campaign said funding for housing should prioritize projects in “low-income areas, and near job and transit centers.”
Schiff and Lee have both touted their success securing earmarked funds for housing and homelessness. Porter, however, is a staunch opponent of earmark requests, arguing the funding goes to lawmakers’ “pet projects” and requests should be rejected. She has signed onto letters instead, urging her colleagues to approve grants to homelessness assistance programs.
Steve Hilton, a Republican candidate for California governor, leaned into President Donald Trump’s endorsement.
(
Jason Henry
/
Nexstar/Bloomberg
)
Topline:
Republican Steve Hilton will advance to the November general election in the race for California governor, setting up a longshot contest against Democrat Xavier Becerra in which he’s promised to slash spending and regulations if elected.
Why now? Hilton, a British American former Fox News host, secured about 25% of the vote in the June 2 primary, with about 88% of votes counted as of Tuesday evening.
His opponent: Becerra is a former state attorney general and U.S. Health and Human Services secretary who emerged from a large pool of Democratic candidates.
The context: Hilton’s win knocks billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer from contention after he spent $215 million of his own money to boost his populist campaign and blanket the airwaves with ads. It will make the general election a traditional partisan matchup during a midterm election year that Democrats will treat as a check on President Donald Trump’s administration rather than the intra-Democratic Party brawl that Steyer supporters had hoped. California uses a top-two primary system; the two candidates with the most votes advance to the November ballot regardless of party.
Republican Steve Hilton will advance to the November general election in the race for California governor, setting up a longshot contest against Democrat Xavier Becerra in which he’s promised to slash spending and regulations if elected.
Hilton’s win knocks billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer from contention after he spent $215 million of his own money to boost his populist campaign and blanket the airwaves with ads. It will make the general election a traditional partisan matchup during a midterm election year that Democrats will treat as a check on President Donald Trump’s administration rather than the intra-Democratic Party brawl that Steyer supporters had hoped for. California uses a top-two primary system; the two candidates with the most votes advance to the November ballot regardless of party.
With a crowded field of Democrats all competing for votes, Hilton led in the polls for much of the race, energizing conservative voters with promises to cut income taxes and the gas tax, boost oil drilling and overturn environmental regulations such as the state’s greenhouse gas reduction mandates.
He’s sold his candidacy as an opportunity for Californians crushed by high costs to end “16 years of one-party rule.” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the last Republican to lead California, left office in 2011.
“The people of California have really been generous in giving the Democratic Party the opportunity to show that their ideas work,” Hilton said last week, declaring victory early at a press conference in Sacramento. “I think the patience is running out, really.”
He faces an uphill battle in November.
California Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly two-to-one. Though Hilton says he’s presenting the chance for the state to go in a different direction, there has been a GOP candidate in the general election for governor in every race in the past two decades — and besides Schwarzenegger’s tenure, Democrats have won them all.
He’s also endorsed by Trump, whom Californians disapprove of by high margins.
But he has not downplayed the endorsement.
“I think it’s going to be very helpful to Californians to have a governor who has a good working relationship with the president and his team,” he said.
Hilton’s signature campaign promise is to eliminate the income tax for the first $100,000 in earnings and institute a flat tax rate above that; he said last week that his campaign will consider raising that cap after conducting an economic analysis of the California cost of living. Either option would represent an enormous reduction in state revenue that Hilton has said he expects to offset by cutting a third of state spending.
He has not said how, if elected, he would get such a proposal through the Democratic supermajority in the state Legislature.
Hilton was born in London, the son of Hungarian immigrants to the United Kingdom. He got his start in politics working for the British Conservative Party and played a prominent role in the rise of Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010. He moved in 2012 to Silicon Valley, where his wife was a Google executive, and dabbled in startups before launching a weekly Fox News show in 2017 during Trump’s first presidency. The show, The Next Revolution, ran through 2023.
Federal agencies responsible for immigration enforcement are set to receive tens of billions more dollars after Congress voted to fund them not just for the year, but through the rest of President Trump's term.
More details: The House narrowly voted on Tuesday to direct roughly $70 billion to the Department of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, the second multi-billion dollar infusion of money to the agencies in the last year muscled through by Republicans alone. The measure passed by a vote of 214 to 212.
Why it matters: The vote marks the end of a 115 day standoff over immigration policy. After federal officers shot and killed two protesters in Minneapolis earlier this year, Democrats refused to back more funding for ICE and Border Patrol, with the goal of forcing changes to immigration enforcement tactics.
Read on... for more on the vote.
Federal agencies responsible for immigration enforcement are set to receive tens of billions more dollars after Congress voted to fund them not just for the year, but through the rest of President Trump's term.
The House narrowly voted on Tuesday to direct roughly $70 billion to the Department of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, the second multi-billion dollar infusion of money to the agencies in the last year muscled through by Republicans alone.
The measure passed by a vote of 214 to 212.
The vote marks the end of a 115 day standoff over immigration policy. After federal officers shot and killed two protesters in Minneapolis earlier this year, Democrats refused to back more funding for ICE and Border Patrol, with the goal of forcing changes to immigration enforcement tactics.
But as negotiations fell apart, Republicans moved to circumvent Democrats using a special procedure known as reconciliation to fund the agencies without acquiescing to any of the reforms they were demanding.
In the Senate last week, one Republican joined all Democrats in an unsuccessful attempt to block the measure. The lopsided votes highlighted a Republican caucus continuing to endorse Trump's immigration agenda as Democrats warn that Congress has ceded its ability to provide oversight by funneling these agencies billions of dollars with few strings attached.
ICE gets more than three times its annual funding
Through this legislation, Congress is giving ICE more than three times its last annual budget. Though technically this funding is meant to cover three years, unlike a traditional annual funding bill, the money comes with few stipulations on how and when it should be spent.
While most annual spending measures provide funds for just that fiscal year, this measure includes lump sums that need to be spent only by the end of fiscal year 2029, including:
$38 billion for ICE to hire, pay, train and equip its officers and agents. That includes $7 billion for Homeland Security Investigations and $31 billion for immigration enforcement work like hiring more attorneys, supporting local law enforcement who coordinate with ICE and technology like body cameras;
$22 billion for Border Patrol to pay, train, recruit and equip agents and personnel. That includes $13 billion specifically for immigration enforcement work;
$5 billion for border security technology and screening, including artificial intelligence;
$350 million for enforcement in localities that do not coordinate directly with ICE.
Legislation passed in April to fund most of DHS except ICE and Border Patrol did include provisions that would provide funding for the agency to purchase body cameras, stipulate congressional oversight of detention centers and deescalation training for officers and agents.
Lawmakers agreed to separate funding for ICE and Border Patrol as Republicans and Democrats struggled to reach a compromise on reforms even as a record-long DHS shutdown dragged on.
But now ICE and Border Patrol will be funded without the changes Democrats were demanding, including requiring judicial warrants to enter homes and prohibiting officers from wearing masks. The package also lacks reforms with bipartisan support, such as requiring officers to wear body cameras.
Not only is this standoff ending without Democrats achieving the reforms they pressed for, the agencies will be insulated from additional pressure through the appropriations process for three years.
More dollars after an unprecedented boost
Both ICE and CBP received a massive influx of funding last year, also passed by Republicans through the budget reconciliation process, that has allowed both agencies to largely continue operating even as Democrats refused to provide them annual funding for the last several months.
ICE's usual annual budget is about $10 billion. The $75 billion boost last summer made ICE the highest funded federal law enforcement agency and enabled a hiring surge that doubled its ranks in a matter of months.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was the only Republican to vote against this latest funding measure in the Senate last week. She wrote in a statement that by appropriating funding for three fiscal years instead of the usual one, the measure "weakens the normal budgeting process and sets another precedent for avoiding it when we find ourselves in disagreement."
"In doing so, it reduces Congress' ability to apply reasonable checks on immigration policy for the remainder of this administration and into the next," she wrote.
Other Republicans say they were left with no choice once Democrats decided to withhold funding for these agencies as leverage to extract reforms.
"We're attempting here to fund ICE and CBP at last year's operating budget plus inflation, that's all we're talking about here," House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, said shortly before the vote. "This is not a slush fund, it's regular, normal funding. And we're going to do it not for one year, but for three years so we don't end up here again."
ICE "got a shopping list"
ICE officials have been gearing up for the potential new cash for months.
"Apparently we're going to get more reconciliation money, so I got a shopping list," said Matt Elliston, ICE assistant director for law enforcement systems and analysis, speaking on a panel at the Border Security Expo in Arizona last month.
Among the items on his list are wearable headset displays so that officers do not need to be on their phones during an operation and data to help identify where someone targeted for arrest lives.
Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott said absent the reconciliation funds, the agency was struggling to correctly pay its employees and fulfill contracts.
While the agencies welcome the funds, immigration advocates are concerned that funding the agency outside the normal appropriations process means provisions that tell the agency how to do its work are not included.
ICE agents confront protesters as they gather outside the federal immigration center at Delaney Hall on June 8, 2026, in Newark, New Jersey. The agency will receive tens of billions in new funding through the end of Trump's term under a GOP bill passed by Congress.
(
Spencer Platt
/
Getty Images
)
Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Coalition, said in the past DHS annual funding bills included specific guardrails on the spending including requirements for the agency to report data on who it is detaining and specific treatment of pregnant women in custody.
"It's very dangerous," Altman said. "And it means that the agency will move forward with even fewer accountability mechanisms than we've seen in the past."
Altman also raised concerns about the $350 million dedicated to immigration enforcement in areas that are not "qualified cooperating jurisdictions," meaning a locality that is not a part of programs that allow local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.
"The DHS secretary has wide discretion to just say these are not sufficiently cooperating with the White House's mass deportation agenda," she said. "So it's concerning in terms of where the money will go."
Politics of immigration enforcement
President Trump shakes hands with the newly sworn in Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin in the Oval Office on March 24, 2026. Mullin has dialed back some of the aggressive enforcement operations that drew the national spotlight.
(
Jim Watson
/
AFP via Getty Images
)
After the two killings in Minneapolis, Democrats and a contingent of Republicans in Congress said they wanted to take action to reign in the tactics of federal immigration officers.
For weeks this winter, debate over President Trump's immigration policy consumed Capitol Hill. But despite the protracted fight over immigration enforcement funding, that discussion has largely subsided.
Republicans criticized Democrats for pushing an unserious list of demands. Democrats criticized Republicans for dismissing attempts at meaningful reform.
A new DHS secretary, Markwayne Mullin, has dialed back some of the aggressive enforcement operations that drew the national spotlight. And other controversies, like the war in Iran, have overtaken the immigration policy debate.
So much so that when Senate Republicans finally moved to approve the $70 billion for ICE and Border Patrol, much of the debate focused on an unrelated fund proposed by the Trump administration to compensate people who claim to have been wrongfully targeted by the government.
Reflecting on what followed after the two deaths in her home state, Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., says it has been hard for her personally to come to terms with the reality that Democrats were unable to extract the policy changes they demanded.
And meanwhile, Smith says Minnesotans are still dealing with the fallout from the crackdown — like kids who did not return to school or businesses that never reopened — even as public attention shifted away.
"This is the way it goes, Americans have really busy complicated lives, they're trying to figure out how to pay rent and buy groceries, but what they saw, I don't think they're going to forget it," Smith says. "And that's what I mean when I say we've lost these votes but that doesn't mean we've lost the fight."
Even if public opinion on Trump's immigration agenda does help Democrats' take control of Congress next year, Democrats' ability to extract changes through the appropriations process will be limited now that the agencies have resources to last until 2029.
Copyright 2026 NPR
Keep up with LAist.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
From left, insurance commissioner candidates Jane Kim and Ben Allen.
(
Beth LaBerge/KQED/California State Senate
)
Topline:
Two Democrats will compete in November to regulate the insurance market amid increasing climate change risks, the aftermath of the 2025 Los Angeles fires.
Why now: For the first time since California insurance commissioner became an elected position, two Democrats will vie for the job in November. The top two vote-getters in the June primary were former San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Jane Kim and state Sen. Ben Allen, who received about 27% and 20% of the vote, respectively. One of them will succeed Ricardo Lara, the former Democratic lawmaker who has served two terms as insurance commissioner. Lara has presided over the Insurance Department in the past eight years, during which the state saw its deadliest and most devastating fires.
Why it matters: Kim or Allen will be taking on complicated, enormous challenges that have implications for local communities, people’s ability to buy homes and start businesses, and the state’s economy.
Read on... for more on the race.
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
For the first time since California insurance commissioner became an elected position, two Democrats will vie for the job in November.
The top two vote-getters in the June primary were former San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Jane Kim and state Sen. Ben Allen, who received about 27% and 20% of the vote, respectively. One of them will succeed Ricardo Lara, the former Democratic lawmaker who has served two terms as insurance commissioner. Lara has presided over the Insurance Department in the past eight years, during which the state saw its deadliest and most devastating fires.
Kim or Allen will be taking on complicated, enormous challenges that have implications for local communities, people’s ability to buy homes and start businesses, and the state’s economy.
In the past few years, insurance companies stopped writing new policies or renewing old ones, especially in high-risk areas, citing increasing wildfire risk from climate change and inflation that followed the COVID-19 pandemic. This caused homeowners to turn to the last-resort FAIR Plan, which is mandated by law to provide fire insurance. The plan, run by an alliance of insurers, has grown to more than 684,000 policies in force as of March, an increase of 152% since September 2022. It has warned about its ability to keep paying claims after major disasters.
Proposition 103, a law approved by voters in 1988, means that among many other things, the elected commissioner has the power to approve rate increases. It has kept the state’s rates from rising too much over the years — Californians’ homeowners insurance premiums have hovered around the middle of the pack nationwide — but that could change. Last year, the commissioner put in place regulations that include new factors insurers can use when setting their premiums, such as catastrophe modeling and reinsurance costs. Some companies have applied for and received approval to raise their rates, so they’re starting to write policies again.
Keeping insurance available but affordable will be the most pressing issue for either Kim or Allen, whose responsibilities will also include regulating auto, pet and some aspects of health insurance, plus workers’ compensation.
Another problem that will need plenty of attention: making sure insurance companies pay their claims in a timely manner that helps communities to rebuild. The L.A.-area fires shed a light on insurer practices that delay and deny claims, as well as underinsurance and the lack of standards for smoke damage, which have held up recovery. Pending legislation — such as those authored by Allen, whose district was hit by the fires last year — and lawsuits will address some of those issues. Well-organized fire survivors who called for Lara’s resignation over his department’s response to their concerns will surely keep up the pressure on his successor.
Here’s a look at each candidate’s record and how she or he would approach the job, based on their interviews with CalMatters and what they have said publicly, including at candidate forums.
Jane Kim
Kim’s proposal to create “natural disaster insurance for all,” inspired by a program in New Zealand, has gotten a lot of attention. She plans to fund such a system with a portion of policyholder premiums that insurance companies would collect and divert to the state. The state would then guarantee fire and flood coverage, while insurance companies would continue to cover other risks.
Naysayers, including consumer advocates, wonder why she hasn’t released any specifics about how much capital such a fund would require. Kim told CalMatters that it would need to be studied, but that at its core her proposal would generate revenue.
Opponents of her proposal also say it’s a bad idea to shift catastrophic burden onto the state, pointing to what they say is the failure of splitting off earthquake insurance from homeowner insurance — most California homeowners now have no insurance coverage.
“We (taxpayers) already are on the hook,” Kim said. “When insurers and utilities refuse to pay, they just pass it on to us anyway. Sharing the risk is important.”
Kim also told CalMatters that an idea Merritt Farren, a Republican candidate for commissioner, proposed — that the state create a reinsurance authority to encourage insurers to write policies in the state — “may turn out to be a more efficient model.”
Among Kim’s shorter-term priorities if she wins:
Create public dashboards to show how insurance companies are spending policyholder premiums, and that show their record on claims.
Expand eligibility for a program that provides low-cost insurance to drivers who make less than $38,000 a year.
Tie a company’s ability to sell auto insurance in the state to its willingness to write homeowner policies.
Make the FAIR Plan more transparent by requiring that its list of board members be public, and that its board meetings be public.
Freeze rates when policyholders file claims.
The former San Francisco elected official, an attorney, touts among her accomplishments free community college for the city’s residents; the first $15 minimum wage ordinance in the state; and a tenant-protection ordinance to avoid unjust evictions. She worked as the California director for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2020 U.S. presidential campaign and most recently as California Director for the Working Families Party.
Kim has a long list of endorsers, including many unions such as SEIU California. Besides Sanders, another U.S. lawmaker, Rep. Ro Khanna of Silicon Valley, has also endorsed her.
Ben Allen
The state senator, who will be termed out of the Legislature, wants to bring together the state, insurers, builders, local governments and firefighters to work on risk-reduction strategies.
“I think that's ultimately going to be the way that we get ourselves out of this mess,” he told CalMatters.
What he calls a comprehensive approach includes thinking about where people live and build: “We shouldn't be building new construction that is irresponsible in high-risk areas. We should be looking for ways to carefully and sensitively encourage people to pull back from high-risk areas.”
If he wins, Allen’s other plans include:
Create a consumer advocate position within the insurance department, and increase staff to handle customer service.
Require insurers to explain claim denials and provide real-time reports of delays and outstanding claims after a disaster.
Increase oversight of the FAIR Plan and make sure it complies with commissioner orders.
Ban the insurance commissioner and staff from working for the industry immediately after they leave the department.
Allen has played up his experience as a legislator, including writing and passing bills related to holding insurance companies accountable. For example, a law he wrote now requires insurers to pay 60% of policyholders’ contents coverage without a detailed inventory, and gives consumers more time to provide that inventory. He also touts writing Proposition 4, the bond measure approved by the state’s voters in 2024 “for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention and protecting communities and natural lands from climate risks.”
Other pending bills authored by him include one that would require insurers to give homeowners 90 days notice before they intend not to renew their policies, along with a clear explanation. Another would penalize insurance companies that fail to correct their practices after the insurance department finds that they have violated laws and regulations.
Allen also has many endorsements, including the two leaders of the state Legislature, Senate Pro Tem Monique Limon and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas. U.S. Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, both from California, unions and the Consumer Federation of California also endorse him.
Will LA extend local voting rights to noncitizens?
Destiny Torres
is LAist's general assignment reporter and brings you the top news you need for the day.
Published June 9, 2026 2:05 PM
A proposed November ballot measure could extend voting rights to residents without U.S. citizenship status in the city of L.A. for local elections.
(
Ronaldo Bolaños
/
LAist
)
Topline:
L.A. City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez on Tuesday pushed his colleagues to consider a November ballot measure that could extend voting rights to residents without U.S. citizenship status.
The background: Soto-Martínez introduced a motion in April. It was sent to the city’s Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee, but that group has yet to discuss it. The last action was taken on May 28, when the item was continued until an undetermined date, and it was not on the committee’s June 5 agenda.
What does this mean? If placed on the ballot and approved by voters, the mayor and City Council would have the ability to make changes to the city’s ordinance that would allow noncitizen residents to vote in local elections. It would affect residents like Grace McManus, a legal permanent resident who has lived in L.A. since 2002. “Like so many longtime residents, I contribute to this city every day, yet I’ve often felt invisible and unheard,” McManus said in a statement. “Residential Voting is about making sure people like me have a voice in the decisions that affect our families and our communities.”
Why is the council member pushing for this? Soto-Martínez and supporters of the measure say everyone who lives in and contributes to L.A. should be represented in the democratic process. “My own parents spent decades working, paying taxes, and raising their children in Los Angeles without the right to vote,” Soto-Martínez said in a statement. “Their story is the story of hundreds of thousands of Angelenos who contribute to this city every day and deserve a voice in the decisions that affect our community.”
Is there a deadline? Yes, the City Council has until June 17 to place a ballot measure on the General Election ballot in November.
