The Brief

Calling a statewide special election sounds simple in theory. But executing one with fewer than 75 days notice? As one California county election official put it, that’s a “herculean” effort.

California voting officials are scrambling behind the scenes to prepare for the special election Gov. Gavin Newsom wants this November on his proposal to redraw the state’s congressional districts. But to do so, Newsom needs voters to approve a ballot initiative in an off-year special election that the state has yet to officially approve and schedule.

Democrats want the proposed California maps to offset President Donald Trump and Republicans’ efforts to stack the next congressional election in the GOP's favor by squeezing more Republican seats out of red states like Texas, Florida and Missouri.

Newsom only released his proposed maps late last week, and state lawmakers — who just returned from a month-long summer recess — are staring down a hard deadline of Friday to greenlight the ballot language before voters in time for a Nov. 4 election.

County election officials are hustling as if the election is happening so they can make sure they lock down everything from vendors to print their ballots, locations for voting centers and election workers to staff those polling places come Nov. 4. They’ve pushed hard for the state to cover the hefty costs of an unplanned special election, and some have noted that without additional appropriations, they might need to cut back on vital public safety and social services.

“It's difficult for us, just in a regular election, being a smaller rural county,” said Juan Pablo Cervantes, the registrar of voters for Humboldt County, which has just over 85,000 registered voters. Usually Cervantes and his staff have at least five months of lead time to find voting sites, hire staff and procure all the machines, pens and ballots for a statewide election.

“That’s usually a Herculean effort on its own,” Cervantes said.

A mad dash to find ballots and vote centers

One of the biggest challenges for counties is lining up vendors to print enough ballots – including one absentee ballot for every registered voter in the state, as well as a sufficient number to keep onsite for on-site voting at polling stations. California’s secretary of state has only approved seven vendors to print ballots, not including Orange County, which operates its own printing facility.

The other two logistical hurdles are securing enough sites to serve as vote centers, and hiring and training staff to work them.

Soon after Newsom declared on July 31 that he would call a special election, Orange County Registrar of Voters Bob Page gathered his staff for an emergency planning meeting. He instructed them to identify which supplies they needed to order as soon as possible, prioritizing products like ballot paper, ballot envelopes and toner for their ballot printers – which might not arrive in time to meet deadlines if they waited for official confirmation of a special election.

Should the governor end up abandoning his plan, Orange County would also be able to use those materials in next year’s June primary election, minimizing potential waste of taxpayer dollars.

“I had to make a decision that I couldn't wait until Aug. 22 to make sure that I could pull this off,” Page said. “I don't want to be in a position where my county fails in some way to conduct a free and fair election.”

The county also started emailing people with past experience as election workers to gauge potential interest in working at a vote center during the special election.

California's last special election

California last had a short-notice, off-year statewide special election in September 2021 when Newsom defeated an attempt to recall him from office.

But because the recall campaign was triggered by a signature drive rather than ordered by the state Legislature, Page said counties had plenty of early warning signs to help them prepare.

“We knew when there were enough signatures to require the recall election,” Page said. “We were very involved when the legislature was pitching ideas of trying to shorten the timeline and have the recall election in August of that year rather than September.”

Even then, when the Legislature was hashing out the fine print about when the election would take place, county registrars brought their vendors to testify that they didn’t have enough paper stock to print ballots in time for an August recall election. The date was ultimately set for Sept. 14.

How much will it cost?

The Legislature and the Department of Finance have yet to release official cost estimates for the statewide special election, but experts say that given inflation, the Nov. 4 special election will almost certainly surpass the recall’s price tag.

During that 2021 effort, the state sent counties more than $240 million and an additional $35 million to the secretary of state’s office to administer the election. In the end, the contest cost less than planned — about $200 million in all, with the counties’ costs totaling just over $174 million.

Newsom has repeatedly promised the state will cover the steep cost counties will incur to administer an unplanned statewide off-year election. Yet in the absence of official statewide numbers, county officials and even Assembly Republicans have released their own estimates. The GOP caucus’s budget analysis projected the statewide contest would cost taxpayers $235.5 million.

A voter fills out their ballot at a vote center at Santa Ana College in Santa Ana on March 5, 2024.

(

Lauren Justice

/

CalMatters

)

Page estimated Orange County’s costs will land somewhere between $11.2 million to $12.7 million depending on whether the ballot and county voter information guide will fit in the same envelope or need to be sent separately. Riverside County’s registrar projected upwards of $15 million in costs, and Fresno County was bracing for at least $4 million in unbudgeted expenses.

The counties have implored state leaders to provide them money up front rather than reimburse them after the election.

“The additional expenses tied to a statewide special election would fall almost entirely on counties — imposing a significant and unfunded financial burden on already strained local budgets,” wrote the California State Association of Counties, which represents county supervisors, in partnership with its subsidiary organization that represents clerks and registrars.

H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the Department of Finance, said that the legislation will provide the money to counties in advance, as it did in 2021 before the gubernatorial recall election, although the department has yet to determine the precise amount..

“The state of California is going to pay for it,” Newsom said at a press conference last week, dismissing concerns from county registrars about how they’d afford to administer the election as “deeply disingenuous.”

“There’s no price tag for democracy,” Newsom said.

The governor has also stated that unlike during the recall election, several counties already plan to hold local off-year elections and can add the redistricting question to the existing ballot. As of Monday, only 21 counties are listed as having elections scheduled for Nov. 4, according to the Secretary of State’s website.

But Cervantes, who estimates his county will incur at least $700,000 in additional costs, emphasized that it makes a “massive difference” whether the state pays upfront or requires counties to submit expenses for reimbursement. His vendors won’t allow him to defer payment until he receives the state’s check in the mail.

Cervantes noted that counties pay for elections administration from the same pot of money that funds sheriff’s departments, county jails and the district attorney’s offices, as well as some local wildfire prevention efforts. That’s why it’s so important for the state to cover the costs, he argued.

“You're talking about taking deputies off the street. You’re talking about reducing social services. Like, it’s a zero-sum game,” Cervantes said. “If I have to spend that money, then other departments won't be able to.”

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

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.