The Brief

Sacramento State political science professor Kim Nalder was working out at a Sacramento gym in 2003 when she overheard a conversation about the upcoming recall election of then-Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat.

She remembers “guys in the weight room just saying, like, 'How cool would that be to have Arnold Schwarzenegger as our governor?'" she said. “It had nothing to do with policy at all.”

A few months later, the international action film star triumphed in a field of 135 candidates to replace Davis, who’d been re-elected the year before but had come under fire for rolling blackouts in the state and unpopular vehicle license fees. “The Governator” went on to serve nearly two terms.

If the election were just about whether or not Davis should keep his job, and not also who should replace him if he were recalled, Nalder doubts the Republican Schwarzenegger would ever have taken office. Accompanying him on the ballot were a host of other colorful characters, including actor Gary Coleman and porn star Mary Carey. Per the rules of the recall, the candidate with the most votes, not necessarily the majority, wins.

“I just think the recall probably wouldn't have happened — because there wasn't that much upset at Davis himself — if we didn't, you know, have any fun alternatives,” she said.

California voters this year are deciding whether to approve Proposition 5, which would do away with “the second question” of who should replace a state elected official if they are recalled. Instead, depending on the office and the timing, a replacement would be appointed or elected in a special election.

The measure was placed on the November ballot by Democratic lawmakers in 2024 with the support of the secretary of state and good governance groups Common Cause and League of Women Voters. It came in response to the 2021 attempted recall of Gov. Gavin Newsom. Republican lawmakers voted against it, arguing that it would dilute the power of the voters and add costs associated with follow-up special elections.

However, with 14 propositions on the ballot and not a dollar raised so far in support or opposition, both sides may have to rely on voters’ gut reactions.

The “weak gazelle”

Aside from the recall of Davis, the only other successful state recall this century was that of the author of Prop. 5, Democrat Josh Newman.

In 2017, Newman was a freshman lawmaker representing a purple Southern California district when he joined 27 of his colleagues in approving the gas tax, which added a 12 cent surcharge to every gallon of gas purchased in California to fund transportation projects. Republicans fiercely opposed the effort, arguing new taxes weren’t necessary. The bill passed with the bare minimum of votes.

Less than two weeks later, then-conservative commentator and now-San Diego Assemblymember Carl DeMaio told Orange County talk show hosts that gas tax opponents needed to use the “gazelle strategy,” to begin taking out lawmakers who’d approved the tax.

“We’ve identified that weak gazelle, the slowest gazelle, the one with the limp,” he said. “And that’s Josh Newman, in Orange County.”

Why Newman? Because he was elected by the slimmest margin of any senator, fewer than 2,500 votes.

In the ensuing weeks, DeMaio’s organization, Reform California, led the effort to recall Newman, helping to collect more than 64,000 signatures — equivalent to 20% of voters in the last election — and centering its campaign on Newman’s “deciding vote” on the tax.

Close to 60% of voters chose to recall Newman in June 2018, replacing him with Republican Ling Ling Chang. The recall ended the Democrats’ supermajority in the state Senate.

Gov. Gray Davis speaks at an anti-recall labor union rally in San Jose on Oct. 5, 2003.

(

David McNew

/

Getty Images

)

In a recent interview with CalMatters, DeMaio stood by his “weak gazelle” strategy.

“If voters want to stop something from happening and being repeated, then mid-term, sometimes the only thing they can do is to use a recall as a way of expressing their opposition,” he said.

But Newman said that kind of “political gamesmanship” was not what former progressive governor Hiram Johnson intended when he proposed the law in 1911.

In a speech, Johnson characterized the recall process as “the precautionary measure by which a recalcitrant official can be removed.”

Newman said he doesn’t feel he fit that bill.

“I didn't do anything other than cast a tough vote,” he said. “Was I malfeasant? I hardly think so. Especially given the state of the state's road systems at the time.”

Newman made recall reform one of his priorities when he was elected back into office in 2020. After an expensive recall election for Newsom, other Democrats had the political will and Newman put forward Senate Constitutional Amendment 1, which became Prop. 5.

Newman said the title of the proposition, which says that it “Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers,” may confuse voters, since legislators do not hold statewide office, though all California legislative races would be affected by the change.

How would it work?

If Prop. 5 passes, eliminating the replacement question, the governor would call a special election within about four months to replace a recalled state senator or assemblymember. If the governor was recalled within the first two years of their term, the secretary of state would call a special election. If they are in the second two years of their term, the lieutenant governor would finish the governor’s term. The ousted official would be allowed to run for the same office in the special election.

If a statewide official such as the state treasurer, attorney general, or insurance commissioner were recalled, the governor would appoint their replacement to serve until the next scheduled election.

If Prop. 5 were to pass, DeMaio said the gap in representation may dissuade voters from approving a recall, even if they want a change.

“The argument will now be made, if Prop. 5 passes, that if you vote yes on recall, then you're going to be without a representative for months, if not longer, and so you're going to silence your community,” he said.

He said extra special elections would lead to higher costs to taxpayers. The 2021 attempted recall of Newsom cost about $200 million to administer — a cost that would double if there were two separate elections.

However, Nalder suspects the change would lead to fewer recalls in general, likely a guiding force in Democrats’ support of the effort.

“It's relatively easy to get the signatures, and it causes a lot of chaos and costs a lot of extra money,” she said. “That's easier for Democrats to want to change because they're the ones who win more in the races.”

A Public Policy Institute of California poll in early September found the measure faces long odds, though: 59% of likely voters said they likely would vote “no” and just 35% said they would vote “yes.”

Nalder said the poll was conducted before voters had done their ballot homework, and upon learning more, they’ll likely align with their party’s positions.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Very early on Wednesday morning, Dover, N.J., Councilwoman Sandra Wittner started getting messages about immigration agents. A dozen or more were gathering outside a Walgreens, according to the messages she was getting. Throughout the day, neighbors in north New Jersey saw a spike in Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity.

And New Jersey is not alone. In the weeks ahead of the midterms, various cities and states across the country are reporting a notable rise in ICE activity, according to reports gathered by NPR and its member stations.

"The tactics that the administration has been deploying in communities really appear to be designed to try to intimidate voters," says Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School. Despite that, early turnout is surging.

"There was definitely a lot of apprehension and fear," Wittner recalls. "We just really weren't sure if something huge was about to happen. People were not feeling very comfortable or safe."

Wittner is not sure who was detained or where, which is unsurprising: these days it's difficult to report on ICE crackdowns as they happen, because the Department of Homeland Security no longer publicly shares timely information on its operations.

NPR wrote to the agency to ask if there has been a recent surge. It responded: "ICE agents uphold our nation's immigration laws in all 50 states, seven days a week, 24 hours a day."

And yet NPR and its member stations have received tips from rural Illinois, Oregon, Detroit and California about surges in ICE enforcement throughout October.

An official within New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani's office who was not authorized to speak publicly confirmed that they have noted a surge in ICE activity in the city.

"We're certainly witnessing an uptick in activity, and have been since the summer," says a member of a volunteer group of neighbors in New York. She asked that NPR not use her name, as she is worried about retaliation. Her group goes to the scene where an ICE operation is happening, documents it, reminds those being detained of their rights, and alerts neighbors.

"In the past few weeks we've seen numerous large operations, or what we call cluster raids, multiple agents going to one spot and then the next," she said.

On the other side of the country, Oregon Public Broadcasting reporter Troy Brynelson has reported on a similar trend. "What we were seeing in early October and what we've seen continue, at least anecdotally throughout this month, is that ICE activity has really picked up in Portland." Brynelson says it seems to be concentrated in commercial areas. "I'd say it's a noticeable uptick compared to what we've seen over the summer."

Juan Proaño of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), a civil rights organization, says he's concerned because this is happening so close to the midterm elections. "It's not about ICE at the actual polling station, it's ICE at the perimeter of the polling station," he says.

"Mass enforcement actions could be away from the polls, but with social media and the news, it could be enough to dissuade somebody from actually going out to vote."

Weiser of the Brennan Center says there's no indication the raids are affecting turnout. On the contrary, she says there has been a surge in early voting in minority communities across the country. "The good news is: it isn't working. Americans are tuning this out and we are not seeing a significant impact on participation. And we are actually seeing huge surges in participation in communities of color, and in Latino communities, and in all the communities that have been targeted by ICE and DHS."

Even so, she says that intimidation at the polls is illegal, and should be reported.
Copyright 2026 NPR

California water regulators have approved a new plan overhauling how farms and cities take water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and rivers that feed it, setting up the next fight over Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to balance water supplies with the needs of a struggling ecosystem.

The plan gives water agencies a choice: agree to forgo some water and restore habitats, or fall under the regulatory backup — a set of mandatory rules for how much water must remain in rivers and streams to flow through the Delta.

But the compromise the Newsom administration reached four years ago with the state’s most powerful water suppliers now faces opposition from unexpected quarters.

Powerful water agencies that once backed it say Newsom’s voluntary agreements have become too restrictive. The Trump administration has threatened to withdraw support and several hundred million dollars in funding. And environmental advocates, tribes, and fishing groups warn that the deal and its regulatory backup gut protections for an ecosystem already in crisis.

Opening this week’s final hearings, E. Joaquin Esquivel, chair of the State Water Resources Control Board, said he was struck by the opposing criticism. He called water agencies’ narrative that the plan has strayed from Newsom’ original deal “convenient theater.”

"Some agencies say we kept too much oversight,” Esquivel said. On the other hand, tribes and environmental groups say “we kept too little. They are pointing at the same provisions from opposite directions. That doesn't make the plan perfect. It does tell me the plan sits where a regulator should.”

The question is how California’s water regulators will move forward without the buy-in of major water users these agreements had aimed to bring on board, and whether the regulatory backup will hold if they don’t.

“That creates a world of confusion and dysfunction,” Gary Bobker, program director at Friends of the River, said at a briefing Tuesday. “And I think the board recognizes that they're going to be handed an incredible morass.”

Supporters say the deal has changed

The Delta is the heart of California’s water delivery system, where state and federal pumps export Northern California river water to Central and Southern California. It’s also the center of California’s water wars, and in the throes of collapse.

State officials have been warning for years that existing rules aren’t enough to stop the precipitous decline of native species like the state’s iconic salmon as they lose freshwater to cities and farms. Crashing populations forced the recent cancellation of salmon fishing for three unprecedented years in a row.

But the state last overhauled the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan, a keystone document governing water quality and flows, in 1995.

Late Thursday night, after two days of public comments raising concerns with the plan and several hours deliberating last-minute changes, the State Water Resources Control Board approved an update centering Newsom’s voluntary agreements.

Only one board member, civil engineer Nichole Morgan, voted against the update. Among the yes votes was Newsom’s former secretary for environmental protection Jared Blumenfeld, a signatory to the original deal.

California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot told a quiet room Thursday that he knew this path forward was uncomfortable for everyone.

“We heard yesterday a lot of groups, including tribal governments, that continue to believe that this is not sufficient, and this is the wrong approach,” Crowfoot said. “We have water agencies that aren't comfortable with the way that their proposal — our proposal — has materialized … That’s natural. This is a paradigm shift.”

Officially known as the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program and backed by $2.9 billion of mostly state as well as federal and water supplier money, the Newsom administration touted these agreements as a way to forestall legal fights while balancing competing demands on the Delta.

But after years of regulatory processes, public comment and environmental review, the original signatories are balking. Water users, including Westlands Water District, a power player in the state’s $60 billion agricultural economy, say the current plan is not what they signed up for.

“It's unrecognizable,” said Jennifer Pierre, general manager for the State Water Contractors, which represents public water agencies serving 750,000 acres of farmland and 27 million people.

Pierre called the latest version a “complete system of micromanagement” that centers too much decision-making with the state water board’s executive director, and retains too little flexibility.

“I think everyone's reviewing it to see, okay, we've all acknowledged this is not what we proposed, but is it workable?” she said.

A second front opens up

In a major blow to the voluntary agreements, the federal government — which pumps Delta water to millions of acres of Central Valley farmland — is threatening to jump ship. If it does, it would take hundreds of millions of federal dollars with it.

State water regulators clarify that no one has yet officially withdrawn from the deal. But the threat hits harder than those from other water users, said Barry Nelson, a senior policy analyst for the Golden State Salmon Association.

“They're the largest water project in the Central Valley. They have more storage than anyone else in the state of California. And they jointly operate the Delta with the state,” Nelson said at a briefing for reporters.

Aubrey J.D. Bettencourt, principal deputy commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which operates California’s federal water delivery system, wrote to the water board in September to express the Trump administration’s “serious concern” with the near-final draft.

Bettencourt said it “reflects more of what has come to be expected from the State Board – executive and regulatory overreach, questionable legal authority, and continued downward pressure on water users throughout the state,” referring to reduced water supplies.

These concerns include a new provision requiring that if state or federal managers make substantial changes to water deliveries that decrease flows through the Delta, they must submit a plan to make up for the loss.

The addition comes after the Trump administration’s unilateral move last December to allow more federal exports from the Delta to Central Valley farms. California officials, who typically coordinate with federal water managers, warned at the time this risked leaving less for other water users and the environment.

Bettencourt wrote that if the board fails to address the Trump administration’s concerns, federal water managers will pull out and stop funding a plan she said “threatens reliability of water supplies that support … the entire fabric of California’s agricultural economy, rural communities, urban centers, and natural vitality.”

War among the water users

State water regulators say the plan can still succeed without federal participation or money, which was originally anticipated to reach $740 million.

“We're still committed to making the (voluntary agreements) pathway work for the other participants. It does complicate things, and we'll have to work through that,” said Eric Oppenheimer, the state water board’s executive director.

The money is part of the voluntary agreements’ $2.9 billion price tag intended to pay for habitat restoration and water purchases.

Oppenheimer said that if the Trump administration pulls out, federal water managers at the bureau instead would be bound by the backup plan.

But he added the board’s modeling shows it’s in the Trump administration’s best interest to stick with the voluntary agreements because it will allow them to export more water.

“It has a reduced water supply impact for Reclamation and its contractors, and we also think that the voluntary agreement itself is a benefit for the ecosystem,” Oppenheimer said. “But we can't make them volunteer.”

Environmental advocates and the fishing industry are skeptical about many things, including that state regulators will truly hold the federal government to the regulatory backup. They point to increased federal releases from Lake Shasta to send water to Central Valley farms this past summer, despite state objections that this would sap cold water necessary for imperiled salmon.

Those who fought voluntary agreements from the outset for failing to protect the Delta and all who depend on it say it’s ironic that water users are now fighting the deal, too.

“There actually might be a war among water users,” Bobker said. “That's kind of what you're seeing here: people who think the (voluntary agreements) are a weak-enough gutting of the regulations, and those who think actually no, they don't go far enough.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday rejected the Justice Department’s request for California to set aside disputed ballots received in the midterm election.

The panel’s 2-1 ruling is the latest setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to assert control over state-run elections.

Read the decision

The administration has alleged California sent ballots to some 20,000 people who may not be U.S. citizens. It wants the state to set those ballots aside and not count them until citizenship can be verified. California officials say the list is highly unreliable and likely includes many people who are U.S. citizens.

A district court judge already forcefully denied that request and warned that the Justice Department’s demands could disenfranchise citizens.

“As the district court found — and we discern no clear error — there is no feasible way to identify and segregate the ballots of specific individuals without potentially catastrophic effects on the entire system,” the appeals court wrote.

The ruling is the latest in an expansive legal battle between the federal government and the state before Election Day in the midterms Tuesday. Millions of people in California have already voted.

The majority opinion was authored by Judge Mark J. Bennett, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, and Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

Hundreds of thousands of ballots have already been processed. Elections officials have said that processed votes are completely anonymized and can’t be matched back to the voters who submitted them.

The ruling comes during broader federal scrutiny of local elections, with the Trump administration issuing a raft of subpoenas in Alaska in a spoiler-candidate controversy. The Justice Department has also provided a list of alleged noncitizen voters to officials in Washington state.

Outside groups sued for access to the disputed list

Earlier on Friday, a federal judge in Washington ordered the Trump administration to share the disputed list of names with lawyers for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and the UCLA Voting Rights Project. They want the list so they can examine who is on the list and assess its impact on eligible voters.

It will be the first time that a nongovernment organization will have the opportunity to evaluate the merits of the list of some 20,000 names.

Prosecutors with the Trump administration have argued that there is just as much to lose from noncitizens illegally voting, arguing that to tally those votes would dilute the voice of citizens.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra is an adviser to the UCLA Voting Rights Project.

The two groups sued the Homeland Security Department in early October to prevent it from using federal immigration data to challenge state voter rolls. The lawsuit cited examples in other states where the federal government’s data has been proven to mistakenly include thousands of citizens. It argued that the data-matching methods risk disenfranchising or deterring citizens from voting. On top of that, plaintiffs argued, the lists could disproportionately target naturalized citizens who are legally entitled to vote.

Another suit seeks to defend election workers

A coalition of unions on Friday also joined the growing list of groups challenging the federal government’s efforts.

The unions, including the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, are asking a federal judge to temporarily block the Justice Department from demanding that local officials stop counting ballots and to drop threats to criminally prosecute officials who do not comply with their demands.

The top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, Bill Essayli, has warned that “any election official who knowingly processes the ballot of a noncitizen is opening themselves to legal jeopardy.”

On Thursday the Associated Press obtained subpoenas issued to election officials in Los Angeles County. The subpoenas request any documents and communications related to letters sent in July and October by federal officials to state election officials outlining the allegations about noncitizen voters. They also seek any information about efforts to prevent noncitizen votes from being counted. At least three L.A. County election officials have been asked to appear before a grand jury on Nov. 4, the day after the election.

The lawsuit accuses the Justice Department of issuing threats against election officials that could interfere with their ability to process votes.

It is unclear whether the Justice Department intends to bring criminal charges against anyone. The department does not typically subpoena people whom it regards as targets of a criminal investigation to appear before a grand jury.

The Boulevard, Pasadena’s last gay bar that has stood witness to the worst years of the AIDS crisis and so much more, is closing after 45 years on Saturday with a farewell bash of drag and karaoke.

“We’ve had weddings. We’ve had funerals. We’ve had college graduations,” said Steven Terradot, owner of The Boulevard, who’s retiring and has put the bar up for sale.

“You always feel welcome,” said David Imai, who first came to the bar in 2012. “This place has a reputation of being the gay Cheers for a reason.”

Come November, what Pasadena loses isn't just a cozy watering hole, but a keeper of its LGBTQ+ past.

“We were more than just a place that sold drinks — or more than a party,” Terradot, 69, said. “I like to think that we had a conscience here, you know?”

Fridays are drag nights at the bar.

(

Fiona Ng

/

LAist

)

The Boulevard in Pasadena.

(

Fiona Ng

/

LAist

)

How The Boulevard survived the AIDS crisis

The Boulevard, Terradot said, opened in 1981, when original owners Randy Biggs and partner Carl got a liquor license after buying its predecessor, The Office, a gay beer-and-wine bar.

At the time, Pasadena had a cluster of queer night spots, Terradot said. Among them: The Vermie’s on Foothill Boulevard; Nardi’s, which became Copa; and The Whistle Stop, near The Office when it was on Colorado Boulevard.

Terradot first set foot inside the newly opened Boulevard in his mid-20s. “I looked both ways to see if anybody saw me come in, because there was a shame and a guilt in those days about who you were,” he said.

The place was packed, filled with people seeking belonging, sex, friendship — even as the AIDS epidemic was becoming full blown. He became a regular, eventually moonlighting as a bartender.

The Boulevard bartender Jamal Glasglow (left) and owner Steven Terradot (right).

(

Fiona Ng

/

LAist

)

The Boulevard on Foothill Boulevard.

(

Fiona Ng

/

LAist

)

The Boulevard felt the devastation of HIV.

“I saw it as a young man here,” Terradot said.

The daytime crowd of mostly older gay men, Terradot said, “started dropping like flies and it was scary, it was sad, and you couldn't do anything.”

Funerals were commonplace at The Boulevard and bar regulars started a fund for those in need.

“All we could do was try to get money for medicine or food or rent because people would get fired, they'd lose their health insurance,” he said.

Why he bought a struggling bar in 1999 

In 1999, Terradot bought The Boulevard, three years after the introduction of the so-called “AIDS cocktail,” which turned HIV into a manageable chronic condition.

At the time, business was slow. The internet was making it easy for LGBTQ+ folks to find each other. And his regulars were going to West Hollywood and Silver Lake to meet new people.

“The first Friday night I owned this bar, we did $200 on the register,” Terradot said.

But he saw it as a calling of sorts.

“I lost 11 friends during the AIDS epidemic,” he said. “I wanted to do something.”

A new generation finds community 

Honey B. Hive hosts Tuesday trans nights at The Boulevard.

(

Fiona Ng

/

LAist

)

To give the bar a jolt, Terradot started its now-signature karaoke nights. He then made drag a weekly night.

In recent years, The Boulevard has become a place for trans folks to build community, adding trans nights on Tuesdays.

“For a long time I would come to The Boulevard in drag, and I would just pick up a lot of the queens' tips, and that was my way of paying my dues,” said Honey B. Hive, a drag performer.

Before long, she was anchoring Tuesday trans nights.

“A lot of the San Gabriel Valley comes for Tuesdays,” she said. “People have been coming ever since it started. It feels very familial.”

One last rush, and hope for a buyer 

On its final Sunday, after the leather social and before karaoke, Terradot was pitching in behind the bar.

David Imai is a Boulevard regular.

(

Fiona Ng

/

LAist

)

Business has more than tripled, he said, as old-timers and newcomers flood in after hearing about the closure.

“It does feel like we are losing a resource and a local hangout for those of us living in the San Gabriel Valley,” Imai, the longtime regular, said.

A buyer could still reopen The Boulevard. Terradot said he’s holding out until mid-November for an offer before packing it all up and walking into the sunset.

He hopes someone out there sees the importance of a neighborhood gay bar.

“You still have kids that are lost that come in here, OK? You need to stick a hand out to them,” Terradot said. “So that is the role of the gay bar.”