The Brief

As Democrats confront declining Latino support across three consecutive presidential elections, a fierce debate is unfolding within the party: Are Latino advocacy groups and polling firms helping or hurting the Democratic cause?

Critics argue that a flawed messaging strategy — and a complacent advocacy infrastructure — have led to Latino voters drifting right, even toward Donald Trump. But advocates push back, warning that the narrative of a dramatic rightward shift is exaggerated and politically dangerous.

The Latino vote’s rightward shift 

Latinos’ support for Democrats has dwindled across the last three presidential elections. In 2016, 79% of Latinos voted for Hilary Clinton. In 2020, 70% of Latinos voted for Joe Biden. In 2024, 62% of Latinos voted for Kamala Harris. And a San Francisco Chronicle analysis of voter data found that in California, the counties with higher shares of Latino residents saw larger shifts toward Trump.

The decline in Latino voter support for the Democratic party has led some political insiders to question whether the people in charge of analyzing and shaping the messaging that will resonate with Latino voters are doing a good job.

“You're either winning or you're losing,” said Fernand Amandi, former President Barack Obama's lead Latino-focused pollster and strategist. “And over the last three presidential cycles, Democrats have been losing support amongst Hispanics. If there's no accountability, then why are they even doing this work?”

The debate over immigration

Critics like Amandi and Mike Madrid, a veteran political strategist who founded the Lincoln Project, say that Democrats lost their way with Latino voters by overemphasizing immigration as an issue that motivates the Latino electorate.

They say that this started in the mid aughts, a time when the Latino population surged from roughly 35 million in the year 2000 to more than 50 million in 2010. Democrats were eyeing the ever-growing Latino community and hoping that in the same way that the Black community had become a reliably Democratic voting block by the 1960s, the Latino vote could become reliably blue as well.

“Politically there needed to be an issue that created a racial voting bloc amongst Latinos where none existed,” Madrid said. “For whatever reason immigration [became the] issue.”

Data started to emerge backing up this idea. A firm called Latino Decisions released a poll in 2014 that found immigration reform was the number one issue for Latino voters — at 44%, ahead of things like jobs and the economy, education and healthcare.

Matt Baretto, one of the founders of Latino Decisions, worked on the last three Democratic presidential campaigns, including the Harris-Walz campaign.

Amandi did not think immigration was as big of a motivating issue as others were saying. He argues that pocketbook issues were always more important to the Latino community.

But Baretto stands behind the data his firm gathered about the importance of immigration to the Latino electorate.

“We stand by those analyses. They've been published in social science journals,” Baretto said. “I think the critics are sort of misguided and sort of too focused on the past.”

The Harris campaign’s appeal to Latino voters 

Where Baretto and his critics align is in thinking that when Harris entered the presidential race, she had no chance to win over the Latino electorate, that she was doomed from the start. But they don’t agree on why.

Madrid thinks Harris was not able to woo more Latino voters because her campaign could not realign the perception of where the Democrats stood on immigration in the time she had to campaign.

“She adjusted dramatically to the right,” Madrid said. “But … you can't make up for 15 years of bad branding in 90 days. You just can't do it.”

Conversely, Baretto thinks voters in general across all demographics were simply really unhappy with Democrats.

“Latinos are not the ones who quote lost this election. There was shifts in every single demographic in the United States, and yes, there were shifts in the Latino vote, but there was something much larger going on here,” Baretto said. “We saw a lot of it as … the national and even international moment that we were in, following COVID and the economic recovery. People were frustrated and inflation was only slowly getting addressed and getting abated. The president was not able to wave a magic wand and make inflation go away.”

Where Latinos stand on immigration today

Immigration policy and enforcement has taken center stage again in our national politics as federal agents conducted a series of immigration sweeps across Los Angeles in the first large-scale enforcement action under the second Trump administration this June. Local immigrants rights groups, which have braced for this for months, pushed back in protests marked by resistance and anger.

Angelica Salas, president of CHIRLA, the coalition for human immigrant rights in Los Angeles, doesn’t think that the Democratic Party’s loss of Latino voter support is necessarily a reflection of Latinos abandoning immigration as an important issue. Salas said it has more to do with Democrats inability to deliver on their promises around immigration.

“Every year there's a promise for a path to citizenship. And then there are no results. And so that also creates a sense of who is able to get things across the finish line,” Salas said.

In fact, Salas finds the argument that Latinos don’t care about immigration to be really dangerous.

“It has been used in order to excuse Republicans doing incredible harm to our community and some of the Democrats," Salas said. "It's also created an excuse not to stand up boldly against some of the worst actions of this administration.”

Listen 53:08

Apple

Spotify

As Democrats confront declining Latino support across three consecutive presidential elections, a fierce debate is unfolding within the party: Are Latino advocacy groups and polling firms helping or hurting the Democratic cause? Critics argue that a flawed messaging strategy — and a complacent advocacy infrastructure — have led to Latino voters drifting right, even toward Donald Trump. But advocates push back, warning that the narrative of a dramatic rightward shift is exaggerated and politically dangerous. In the final episode of a three-part collaboration with Latino USA, Imperfect Paradise host Antonia Cereijido and Latino USAhost Maria Hinojosa take you inside the high-stakes debate over the future of Latino political power in America.

Are Latino pollsters helping or hurting the Democratic cause?

As Democrats confront declining Latino support across three consecutive presidential elections, a fierce debate is unfolding within the party: Are Latino advocacy groups and polling firms helping or hurting the Democratic cause? Critics argue that a flawed messaging strategy — and a complacent advocacy infrastructure — have led to Latino voters drifting right, even toward Donald Trump. But advocates push back, warning that the narrative of a dramatic rightward shift is exaggerated and politically dangerous. In the final episode of a three-part collaboration with Latino USA, Imperfect Paradise host Antonia Cereijido and Latino USAhost Maria Hinojosa take you inside the high-stakes debate over the future of Latino political power in America.

Subscribe

• Apple
• Spotify

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

The contract Inglewood’s SoFi Stadium was built on is void, a judge ruled, upending a 10-year-old deal at the center of a larger fight between the city and the stadium developer.

Companies tied to Stan Kroenke and his Hollywood Park stadium property say Inglewood owes them about $400 million under the agreement that had the companies pay for the development’s infrastructure up front in exchange for future reimbursement.

But Inglewood said it shouldn’t have to pay, and claimed the agreement was not enforceable, prompting several businesses that operate SoFi, YouTube Theater and other real estate developments on the site to sue in December 2025.

The city claimed that the process used to greenlight the stadium construction in 2015 was no longer legitimate after a court ruled a similar development agreement in the Inland Empire was void a couple of years later.

Now, Superior Court Judge David Reinert has not only agreed with the city, but said in a Sept. 1 ruling the process leading to the contract had been problematic from the start. Developments similarly based on signature-gathering campaigns that skirt voter feedback had been overturned in the 1990s, according to his ruling.

The order calls into question the future of the financial arrangement the city and the stadium developer have maintained for more than a decade, one that promised Kroenke’s companies reimbursement for the infrastructure and services they paid for and that has generated millions in tax revenue for the city.

It’s also the latest public signal that the once-friendly relationship between Kroenke and Mayor James Butts, which paved the way for the NFL’s return to LA, has grown increasingly tumultuous.

A spokesperson for Hollywood Park said they could appeal the order but haven’t yet done so.

“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s ruling,” they said by email. “Hollywood Park has fulfilled every one of its commitments under an agreement that the City unanimously adopted, described as ‘the best [stadium deal] ever’, and benefited from for more than a decade. We remain hopeful that the City and its leadership will reverse course from their unilateral decision to abandon their commitments under the agreement and will honor their part of the deal.”

An attorney representing Inglewood described it as an important win for the city.

“This decision has huge repercussions for the 300-acre SoFi Stadium/Hollywood Park development,” Skip Miller, lead counsel for the city of Inglewood, said in a press release. “It means that without a valid development agreement, Hollywood Park/SoFi Stadium no longer has vested rights and that the City has no further obligations under the 2015 Development Agreement.”

Butts told The LA Local he wants to negotiate a path forward with the stadium developer but didn’t say if those talks have been scheduled.

“I look forward to talking with them and seeing what we can do to move forward as partners,” he said.

The backstory 

The arrangement that cemented the development agreement in 2015 was: Kroenke’s companies would pay up front for the infrastructure needed to build Hollywood Park, and Inglewood would reimburse them later.

The deal landed Kroenke a new home for the Rams and the opportunity for more real estate development on the site in the future. And it helped the city move forward with reworking the site of the former Hollywood Park Racetrack into one of the nation’s premier stadium complexes.

The reimbursements were designed to be delayed until the city could afford them: When the city earned $25 million in tax revenue from the development in a given year, it would pay down the debt.

Kroenke’s companies say Inglewood owes them about $400 million for those improvements and other investments they made. They claim that the city began surpassing the $25 million revenue threshold in 2022 and each year since.

Butts first told Hollywood Park that he believed the development agreement was void in letters he wrote to Kroenke and his employees last year. He was frustrated that the stadium businesses were fighting the city’s plan to work with an LA advertising agency to install dozens of digital billboards near the stadiums.

The city’s lawyers had found that a similar development agreement had been voided in 2018 and asked that the city be paid back the $20 million in reimbursement payments it made, Butts wrote Kroenke.

The stadium companies sued soon after.

The judge’s ruling

Public projects on the scale of SoFi Stadium typically require a series of hearings, reviews and voter approval — which can take years to achieve. Instead, the stadium developer and city truncated that process by collecting more than 22,000 signatures supporting it.

The City Council voted unanimously in favor of the stadium development in February 2015, and the project broke ground not long after. Butts was a booster of the plan, the LA Times reported at the time. “Now we can celebrate,” Butts said after the winning vote to a cheering crowd in Rams jerseys.

Hollywood Park’s lawyers said in interviews and court filings that the city never questioned the validity of the subsequent contract until last year.

“Its announcement that the Development Agreement is void comes only after the Project was painstakingly built in reliance upon the [agreement], and after the City has reaped enormous benefits from the economic boon created by the project,” Hollywood Park’s lawyers wrote.

State law requires legitimate development agreements to meet various standards. They need to be negotiated between the involved parties, for example, and subject to voter referendum. But the initiative process the city and the developer pursued did not meet those standards. California courts had already found similar agreements “wholly void” dating back to the 1990s, Reinert wrote in the Sept. 1 ruling.

“Therefore, here too, the Development Agreement must be set aside,” he wrote.

Butts said the city was not aware of the legal issues the development agreement could face back in 2015, but he declined to talk more about it because the case could be appealed.

“This is the ruling right now, and we agree with it,” Butts said on Friday.

What happens next

Lawyers for both Hollywood Park and the city released statements saying they remained committed to the success of the stadium development. But how they will arrive at or proceed with a new framework remains unclear.

Hollywood Park said it is exploring its legal options and could appeal the decision. If the ruling stands, the city and Hollywood Park will have to determine what, if anything, replaces the agreement that governed their financial relationship for more than a decade.

The timing adds urgency. SoFi Stadium is set to host the 2027 Super Bowl and the Opening Ceremony of the 2028 Olympics.

Meanwhile, the disagreement over the city’s and stadiums’ digital billboard programs continues. The competing billboard networks have sparked an advertising turf war that has jumped from the courts into the Nov. 3 election.

Ballmer Group is a funder of The LA Local, but their support doesn’t influence our coverage. To learn more about our funders and commitment to editorial independence, click here.  

Los Angeles County has exotic wild animals roaming about, such as wild parrots and peacocks. But what about camels?

No, we’re not talking about that ancient camel found in the La Brea Tar Pits — these animals were brought over for a U.S. Army experiment.

How camels got into our military

We’re going back to the mid-1800s, before gas-powered automobiles changed the way we travel. The U.S. was on the brink of civil war and in the middle of westward expansion.

Typically, the army relied on mules and horses as beasts of burden, but in the new states and territories, they had a hard time hauling supplies over long distances. That was especially true for the Southwest’s dry deserts and mountains.

Meanwhile, camel brigades (also known as Camel Corps) were already in use in armies around the world. These were made up of camel drivers who ferried supplies, transported troops and conducted military cavalry operations.

Great Britain and India used the animals in the 19th century, according to London’s National Army Museum. The Imperial Camel Corps was also established during World War I, with British, Australian and New Zealand forces in the Middle East.

The Camel Corps caught on in America around the 1850s, according to the Army Historical Foundation. The idea bubbled up to Maj. Henry C. Wayne — a camel fan himself — who recommended their use to a skeptical War Department and Congress.

After some years of political finagling, they gave the experiment $30,000 in funding in 1855 (about $1 million today). The money was used to buy 74 camels from the Mediterranean and put them into military service.

The Los Angeles arrival

They were brought over on the Navy store ship USS Supply and went to Texas first, to Camp Verde. As the camels got used to their new home, the time came for one of their first test missions. The federal government planned to build a wagon road to connect the eastern U.S. to the California/Arizona border.

The Secretary of War at the time required the land surveyor to take 25 of the camels on the expedition in 1857, according to the foundation. These “ships of the desert” ended up thriving where horses and mules couldn’t.

The camels could carry a 700-pound load with ease, traveling up to 40 miles a day. They ate off the land and could go over a week without water. After the camels completed the job, the army sent them to L.A. in 1860.

This was for another test to see if camels could be used for mail delivery. They were essentially racing against mules to see who could get from Camp Fitzgerald (a short-lived Civil War camp in L.A. County) to the Colorado River fastest. What the army didn’t realize was that speed wasn’t the camels’ strong suit — several died from exhaustion.

A historic marker on the L.A. Times' old building in downtown Los Angeles on September 30, 1967. The plaque mentions that the area was used as a "corral for camels from Fort Tejon", which is one of the places the animals were sent to in California.

(

Mildred L. Harris

/

Los Angeles Public Library/L. Mildred Harris Slide Collection/Los Angeles Photographers Collection

)

As the Civil War continued, the camels’ future became uncertain. The army was tired of the experiment and the money it cost. The camels were never officially designated as the U.S.’s “Camel Corps” and thus given no real purpose. In California, they essentially floated around L.A.-area outposts, such as the Los Angeles Quartermaster Depot in downtown, Culver City’s Camp Latham and the Drum Barracks in Wilmington.

The U.S. Army eventually sold the camels in California for about $50 each ($1,000 today) in 1864, according to the foundation. These noble animals, roped into what many called a failed military experiment, ended up as circus attractions and on ranches as pack animals. Some were even let loose.

The last of California’s “Camel Corps” is believed to be Topsy. After the experiment shut down, she was used in the Ringling Brothers Circus and movies.

Topsy was eventually sold off to what’s now the Old Zoo in Griffith Park, according to the Natural History Museum, which found her bones. She died there in 1934 at approximately 80 years old.

A new space celebrating the art of autistic and neurodiverse youths has opened on Abbott Kinney Boulevard in Venice, amid the trendy coffee shops and boutiques.

Called “Limitless,” the space is a project of Help Group, a nonprofit that has served people in Los Angeles with autism and mental health challenges for 85 years.

“What art does is it allows people to have a voice who can’t communicate typically. It gives you an insight into who they are as a being,” Susan Berman, CEO of Help Group, told LAist.

Berman said the prime Abbott Kinney real estate was a gift from a board member. Help Group is using the square footage for a community space and gallery to feature neurodivergent artists.

Among the artists included is Noah Remis, 15, whose piece “I <3 NY” incorporates watercolor over the titles of famous musicals like Hamilton and Sweeney Todd.

“Those are different musicals that I know and love,” Remis said.

“Some I saw on Broadway. Just so you know, I also put Cats on there just to anger my dad,” he joked. He said his dream is to act on Broadway.

Noah’s dad, Rich Remis, might not be a fan of Cats, but he is a fan of seeing his son’s love of theater expressed in his painting.

“To hang it up in a gallery with everyone else’s work, it just really adds a special weight to it that I think is certainly not lost on Noah,” he said.

Noah, in response, added: “Don’t get emotional.”

Noah said he hopes other kids will be inspired by his work and maybe even take it home.

Berman, who’s been with Help Group for more than four decades, said she has big plans for the space, which opened last week.

“Our plan is for the community to see the gifts that our neurodiverse artists have, not only in their art but as human beings,” Berman said.

Tanaka Day, an epic meet-and-greet of people with the Japanese surname, is happening the weekend of Sept. 19 and 20 at — wait for it — Tanaka Farms in Irvine.

"I'm the idea guy around here," said proprietor Glenn Tanaka — aka Farmer Tanaka — who dreamed up the inaugural event. "Some of them [were] pretty good, some turned out OK."

For this one, 400 people from across the country RSVP’d, bonded by a Japanese surname that is one of the most common in the U.S. — and one that speaks to the history of Japanese immigration that first brought laborers here starting in the late 1800s.

Glenn Tanaka runs the family Tanaka Farms in Irvine.

(

Courtesy Tanaka Farms

)

One of them was Glenn's grandfather, Takeo Tanaka, who put down farming roots in California that span four generations and counting — Glenn's father George Tanaka, Glenn himself, and Glenn's son Kenny, whose three children are a regular presence at the farm.

"Tanaka literally means middle of the rice field," he said — farmers, essentially. And because many early immigrants were from farming villages, he added, "a lot of Tanakas came over."

The 69-year-old figured, why not bring as many of them together as possible — to hang out, tell family stories and help fill in the tapestry of the Japanese American immigration experience united by the surname.

One example is how the incarceration of Japanese Americans in camps during World War II had touched those who worked and owned farms — and ended up having to sell their holdings on the cheap.

Already, stories are flooding in. Tanaka said different siblings from one Tanaka family had sent in their experiences.

One brother read them and wound up learning new things about the family.

"What's really good to know is I've helped create families that talk," Tanaka said. "Because now they're asking, 'What did, you know, great-grandmother do?'"