The Brief

Probably the most-read information about candidates up for election this November are the words directly under their names on the ballot. It's called a "ballot designation," like a mini biography. These bios are especially important in races where there's not a lot of information about candidates, said retired election lawyer Fredric Woocher.

And they're often squabbled over in court. "People give a lot of thought into what to use," Woocher said of candidates' ballot designations. "And it is often subject to potential abuse."

Some candidates, Woocher said, "will try and come up with a phrase that they believe will be most appealing to the voters and secure the most votes regardless of whether it's the most accurate description of what they do."

The rules

Ballot designations are supposed to tell voters what the candidate does with the majority of their time and/or how they make a living. Candidates have to do it in three words, although "words," in this particular area of state election law, has a bit of a different meaning — all geographies are considered one word. (For example, "City of Hermosa Beach" is considered one word.)

California has lengthy rules about what candidates can and can't say about themselves in those three words. Here are a few of them:

• "Retired" might be OK, but only if the candidate has permanently given up their job or vocation and hasn't taken up another one. 
• Candidates can't use words like "veteran," "scholar," "philanthropist," or "concerned citizen" to describe themselves because these words are considered a "status" under state election law, not a job. 
• Adjectives like "specialist," "leading," and "expert" are generally forbidden under state law because they might "suggest an evaluation of the candidate's qualifications, honesty, integrity, leadership abilities or character."  
• Candidates for judgeships on the ballot have to use their official titles, like "Deputy District Attorney" per a 2017 law. Previously, judicial candidates would list themselves as “violent crimes prosecutor,” “child molestation prosecutor,” or “domestic violence attorney” to grab voters’ attention. 

To figure out what to say about themselves in their ballot designation, candidates start with a worksheet that resembles a job application, including a list of references who can verify their work experience.

But despite all these rules, ballot designations frequently end up in court.

Some examples of challenges

The Orange County Registrar of Voters says it gets between eight and 25 legal challenges to candidates' ballot designations — and to other language on the ballot — each election cycle. Judges make the final call on whether or not a candidate's ballot bio is legal.

In one example from this election, Sarah Schneider, a city council candidate in San Clemente wanted to have "educator" below her name. Her challenger, Zhen Wu, took her to court, saying the term was misleading since Schneider doesn't work in a classroom but rather in a school library. Wu won and Schneider is listed as a "library media technician" on the ballot.

In another example, Victor Valladares, an activist in Huntington Beach, challenged City Council candidate Chad Williams' right to use "Navy SEAL Speaker" as his ballot designation. Valladares argued in his complaint that the bio was "false and misleading" because Williams is not currently a Navy SEAL and is actually a motivational speaker.

A judge agreed and ordered Williams to change his bio to just "speaker," but the candidate appealed and was allowed to keep "Navy SEAL Speaker" on the ballot. The appeal is still pending.

Williams defended the title in an interview with LAist, saying his speaking engagements are based on his prior military experience. "They're not inviting me out because I'm Chad Williams. They're inviting me out because I'm a Navy SEAL veteran," he said.

But Williams acknowledges that the words "Navy SEAL" carry cache. "It's a serious threat to my opponents because it's a very powerful ballot designation," he said.

Why applying the law is complicated

Woocher, the election lawyer, said deciding whether or not a ballot designation complies with state law is not an exact science. "A lot of these involve tough calls for the judges, to be honest with you, because people are so creative in what they try and come up with," he said.

A classic example of that creativity is the former Santa Monica city council candidate, Jerry Rubin. Santa Monica officials repeatedly refused to let Rubin use "peace activist" for his ballot designation. So Rubin tried something even more innovative — in 2003, he persuaded a judge to let him officially change his name to Jerry Peace Activist Rubin.

Rubin is not running in this election. But Wade Kelley, another candidate with an unusual ballot title is running for city council in Santa Monica.

Kelley, who frequently plays his guitar on Santa Monica’s 3^rd Street Promenade, told LAist in an email that he wanted his ballot designation to be “peaceful promenade protester, or Promenade, homeless advocate,” but was told those weren’t vocations under election law.

So, his designation on the ballot? "Guitar guy."

Designers working on the logo, design and mascot for the LA 28 Olympics gave a sneak peek on Monday of what those may look like by the time the games begin in just over two years.

“We looked to the city for inspiration and we were inspired by different thematics and stories that really make this city great,” said Geoff Engelhardt, LA28's head of brand design.

One striking image stood out to them in particular: the flower super-blooms that appear in Southern California after particularly strong winter storms.

California poppies bloom next to the California State Route 138 near the Antelope Valley.

(

Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times via Getty Image

/

Los Angeles Times

)

That led to the choice of vibrant colors like pink, orange and blue, and designs to create 13 “blooms,” representative of 13 stories and 13 thematics.

The design elements are inspired by the region's super blooms.

(

Courtesy LA28 Olympics

)

Those include:

• World Stage (referring to the third time L.A. has hosted the Olympics)
• Hollywood
• LA Light
• First People

An artist rendering of preliminary colors and themes of the LA28 Olympics design.

(

Courtesy LA28

)

The final designs will be important as they will show up on everything related to the LA28 Olympics.

“It wraps every building, every sign, every broadcast, every piece of sport equipment. If you remember the games, you remember this visual wrapper,” said Ric Edwards, LA28's vice president of brand design and executive design director.

The graphics will also adorn tons and tons of apparel and swag, licensed and unlicensed, made to promote the L.A. Olympics.

While these aren't the final designs for the LA28 Summer Olympics, they are the colors and themes designers will be using to come up with those final designs and the much-anticipated mascot of the LA28 Olympics.

An artist rendering shows preliminary design schemes for the LA28 Olympics.

(

Courtesy LA28

)

Designers said they did not use artificial intelligence in this process because they wanted to make sure personal connections to the region informed design decisions.

Olympics designs and mascots can become iconic and endure for years after the last medal has been given out. Take Mexico, nearly 60 years after its summer Olympics in 1968, the op-art design motifs continue to inspire popular culture and visual imagery in the country.

The public rollout for the design concepts starts Monday night at Intuit Dome in Inglewood before and after the Clippers game. The colors and designs will fill digital displays at LA Clippers Plaza.

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department is investigating alleged irregularities into the 2025 special election to redraw California’s congressional districts. Now, Sheriff Chad Bianco, also a Republican candidate for governor, says the state’s attorney general is interfering in the investigation.

In February, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department executed warrants for 1,000 boxes of ballots from the Registrar of Voters.

Bianco said the investigation stems from local election watchdog group, Riverside Election Integrity Team. The group alleges there were some 45,000 more votes tallied than ballots received and logged by the Riverside County Registrar of Voters.

Bianco said the purpose of the investigation is to determine if the allegation has any merit.

“It is basically a fact finding mission. This investigation is simply to physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes reported,” said Bianco at a press conference Friday.

Bianco said a Riverside Superior Court Judge issued an order last week to appoint a special master to oversee the investigation. He said the investigation will start over soon under the supervision of the court, but it’s not clear when or when it’ll be completed.

Attorney General Rob Bonta sent Bianco three letters between Feb. 26 and March 6 asking Bianco to halt the investigation and share case files with his office.

The letters — reviewed by KVCR — show that Bonta requested case files to understand the basis for the investigation. Bonta also raises concerns about whether there was probable cause for warrants to be issued in the first place. Bonta’s office said there’s no precedent for a law enforcement agency to investigate election irregularities.

In a statement, Bonta said Bianco has not provided the requested information. The statement goes on to say “what we have been able to learn raises serious questions about the merits of this investigation. We are especially concerned with legal deficiencies in the affidavits underlying the warrants, including the omission of material facts.”

Meanwhile, County Executive Officer Jeff Van Wagenen said in a statement, “the County and the Registrar of Voters will continue to comply with all lawful court orders and with all legal obligations applicable to election materials and election administration.”

Growing fears about aggressive immigration enforcement tactics — and confusion over federal “public charge” rules that can affect green card and visa applications — are prompting some California families to retreat from child care and early education programs, even when their children qualify.

Under federal immigration law, officials can deny green card and visa applications if they determine the applicant is likely to rely heavily on government assistance. Although many benefits cannot be considered for purposes of the “public charge” rule, advocates say many families avoid social service programs altogether out of an abundance of caution.

Changes proposed in November by the current administration would repeal a 2022 rule that advocates say provided significant clarity on when the rule applies. During the previous Trump administration, the government made changes that widened what could be considered “public charge.” Even after those changes were rescinded, fears persist.

Advocates say the fear and confusion that are already impacting families could be far-reaching for a state like California, where it is estimated that nearly 1.1 million children have at least one parent who is undocumented, according to the National Center for Children in Poverty. More than half of those children are U.S. citizens and over 250,000 under the age of 5.

“With public charge there’s a level of anxiety around signing up for public benefit programs, submitting information, and/or scrutiny that may be increased and make people uncomfortable because of whatever the public rhetoric may be or the perception that it creates risk,” said Stacy Lee, chief learning officer and senior managing director of early childhood at the nonprofit Children Now.

She noted that many child care providers are uniquely positioned to support families because they are not only aware of the impact of immigration raids, but many have also developed trust with immigrant families who might be confused about proposed policy changes.

While public charge does not apply to U.S. citizen children and affects only specific types of immigration cases, many families, including those with mixed citizenship status, still withdraw from public benefits programs out of fear that participation would jeopardize their residency or protection from deportation, advocates say.

“Even when I was representing clients as an immigration attorney and I would tell them 100% that I was sure they were not going to be affected, that their case was exempt from public charge, sometimes they just still wouldn’t [enroll in public programs] because the fear is so severe,” said Liza Davis, advocacy director at The Children’s Partnership.

What is the current policy on ‘public charge’?

The current policy affirms that the public charge test is used only in specific immigration cases and does not apply to a wide range of people, including asylum seekers, U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants and lawful permanent residents applying for citizenship.

“A public charge only shows up when you are an individual that is submitting an application for a very specific form of relief, which a lot of people don’t qualify for,” Davis confirmed.

Additionally, only specific uses of certain benefit programs are considered.

Depending on a person’s specific immigration situation, cash assistance programs like CalWORKS could be considered for public charge tests. CalWORKs is California’s version of the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which many families rely on for benefits such as child care, stable access to food and other basic necessities, like diapers.

Davis encourages families to seek accurate information and assistance. She says concerns about public charge often spread by word-of-mouth among applicants who may be comparing cases without properly accounting for the complexity of the immigration system, which includes many different types of applications with varying rules.

“We’re not able to anticipate what will happen in a different administration, but if this need is absolutely essential for you and you qualify for it right now, then you should really consider taking the help because it’s so important to the well-being of the children in your household,” Davis said she advises families.

Further exacerbating the issue is the lack of definitive certainty on whether and when rules related to public charge may change.

“Public charge has just been historically weaponized,” and different federal administrations have either made or proposed changes, leaving a sense of instability,” said Davis. “The ebb and flow, the unknown of it, and the fact that we can’t say ‘this is not going to change’ — there is no guarantee.”

How child care providers can support immigrant families with young children

Lee from Children Now says that home-visiting programs, which provide parenting support in a young child’s home, are one way to keep families accurately informed about anticipated changes to their benefits and how they can remain connected to social services.

“The standout has been families who have access to home visiting have someone they can trust, that they can ask questions to,” Lee said. “They can talk to their home visitor, who can explain to them what’s going on, what’s real, what’s not real. It’s hard to navigate what’s actually happening versus what’s just a lot of aggressive words or what’s being held up in courts.”

In 2025, about 18,200 children from over 17,000 families in California received home visiting services, according to the National Home Visiting Resource Center. It is estimated that nearly 2.6 million children from nearly 2 million families in the state would benefit from home visiting services.

What is the latest proposed change?

The latest proposed change would mostly repeal the 2022 rule clarifying when public charge applies, but does not offer regulations to replace existing rules. Advocates argue that the lack of clarity can lead families to disenroll or avoid eligible public benefits.

The administration acknowledges that changes to public charge rules between 2019 and 2022, “heightened fears among immigrant families about participating in programs and seeking services, such as health coverage and care.”

The current proposal, filed by former Department of Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem, also recognizes the far-reaching impact of families withdrawing from public services out of fear. “DHS has determined that the rule may decrease disposable income and increase the poverty of certain families and children, including U.S. citizen children. DHS continues to believe that the benefits of the action justify the financial impact on the family.”