Rep. Robert Garcia addresses a crowd and answers questions at a town hall in Orange County.
(
John Donegan
/
Long Beach Post
)
Topline:
The “Election Rigging Response Act,” which would allow the state legislature to impose new Congressional district maps that would apply only to federal elections in 2026, 2028 and 2030, would make substantial changes to how Long Beach is represented at the federal level.
Two key districts: If approved by voters, Newsom’s ballot measure will redraw California’s congressional makeup next year, giving Democrats a chance to win five more seats in the 2026 midterms. Currently, the city is divided between the 42nd and 44th Congressional Districts, represented by Democratic Reps. Robert Garcia and Nanette Barragán, respectively.
42nd District: In the proposed map, Garcia would claim a greater chunk of Long Beach, assuming the northwest neighborhoods of Wrigley, Bixby Knolls and Los Cerritos, among others. Garcia would lose Lakewood, Downey and Gateway City neighborhoods like Commerce and Huntington Park. In exchange, he would take neighboring Seal Beach as the district stretches along the coast, absorbing Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa and parts of Newport Beach.
44th District: Barragán’s district would retrench from Long Beach, retreating to the neighborhoods north of Del Amo Boulevard and west of Downey Avenue, as it loses voters in West Long Beach and the communities that border Lakewood. Inversely, the congresswoman would gain Huntington Park and parts of Commerce.
Read on . . . to see how passage of the redistricting measure could affect the voter makeup of the gateway cities of Los Angeles County and a swath of coastal Orange County.
Seventy days remain until Long Beach voters join the rest of California in deciding how — or specifically by whom — they will be represented over the next six years.
The special election comes after California Democrats last week passed the “Election Rigging Response Act,” which would allow the state legislature to impose new Congressional district maps that would apply only to federal elections in 2026, 2028 and 2030.
The measure, passed 57-20 in the state Assembly and 30-8 in the state Senate, was proposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom as a counterpunch to the Trump Administration, which first urged state lawmakers in Texas earlier this month to redraw their maps to favor Republicans.
If approved by voters, Newsom’s ballot measure will redraw California’s congressional makeup next year, giving Democrats a chance to win five more seats in the 2026 midterms. Democrats control 43 of California’s 53 seats, while Republicans hold a slim 219-212 majority in the House.
In service of that national political fight, the measure would make substantial changes to how Long Beach is represented at the federal level.
Barragán’s district would retrench from Long Beach, retreating to the neighborhoods north of Del Amo Boulevard and west of Downey Avenue, as it loses voters in West Long Beach and the communities that border Lakewood. Inversely, the congresswoman would gain Huntington Park and parts of Commerce.
Meanwhile, Garcia’s district would undergo a major change.
In the proposed map, the second-term congressman would claim a greater chunk of Long Beach, assuming the northwest neighborhoods of Wrigley, Bixby Knolls and Los Cerritos, among others.
Garcia would lose Lakewood, Downey and Gateway City neighborhoods like Commerce and Huntington Park. In exchange, he would take neighboring Seal Beach as the district stretches along the coast, absorbing Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa and parts of Newport Beach.
Matt Lesenyie, a political science professor at Cal State Long Beach, said Wednesday the new districts in and around Long Beach bank heavily on Garcia’s popularity in the region, as the 42nd District would siphon Republican neighborhoods out of the 45th and 47th districts — two districts that Democrats Derek Tran and Dave Min won by slim margins last November.
Tran, a Cypress Democrat, won the 45th District seat over Republican incumbent Michelle Steel by 0.2% of the vote — a difference of 653 votes. And Min, a Costa Mesa Democrat, won last November by fewer than three percentage points, or 10,000 ballots.
Inversely, bluer cities in Garcia’s former district, like Bellflower and Downey, will be added to the 41st Congressional District, shoring up Democrat votes to wage a stronger challenge against the current representative, Republican Ken Calvert.
“If I was a strategist, I’d say you have votes to spare in Long Beach and northeast of Long Beach, Paramount,” Lesenyie said. “You don’t have a surplus south of that district.”
In a phone call last week, Garcia said the redrawing might change local priorities and make for some lively town halls, but it will not alter his overall message to voters.
“Whether it’s here or my current district in southeast LA, whether it’s in Orange County, people want to make sure that we’re taking on corruption in government,” Garcia said. “People want to make sure that programs are responsive to protecting health care and social security. They want to make sure we’re providing funds for parks and for infrastructure. … So none of that message is going to change.”
The newly proposed map makes the 42nd seat solely a beach district, as opposed to a mix of coastal and inland communities that sometimes differ on their needs. More attention could be paid toward laws that affect coastal cities, as well as grants that pay for improved water quality, wetland conservation and infrastructure at seaports.
But the district’s Democratic hold hinges on Garcia’s clout; without him or someone of similar name recognition, the new map could allow for a competitive Republican challenge.
The change, in terms of voter registration, will dilute its population of registered Democrats, from 53% to 40%. Republicans would jump from 18% to 30%, while there would be 5% more without a party preference.
“Without an experienced politician like Garcia, this could become basically a swing district,” Lesenyie said.
Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson, center, along with Congresswoman Nanette Barragán on the left and Rep. Robert Garcia, discuss the effects of the tariffs in Long Beach.
(
Thomas R. Cordova.
/
Long Beach Post
)
State Sen. Tony Strickland, who has worked as a political consultant in Huntington Beach, said the right Republican would focus on “bread and butter” issues like the rising cost of living, as well as high energy costs, crime and “overreaching” building regulations.
But it would be an uphill battle for any Republican, Strickland added.
“Right now, our district that we live in and our map is a very competitive seat that you have to actually campaign hard and earn the people’s vote versus an overwhelming Democratic seat,” he said. “So for a Republican, it would be to try to bring affordability and common sense to California.”
Lesenyie, however, thinks the most formidable Republican would be a culture warrior, one who makes few concessions to moderates and instead taps into the prevailing disdain among those in Orange County against the cultural pace and leanings — such as on gender identity and reproductive health — of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Concessions would be a “poison pill” on either side, Lesenyie said.
Will Newsom’s plan pass?
It’s unclear how people across California feel about the move. Even among supporters, it will be a measure of whether they see it as a necessary sacrifice to their own democratic process.
A UC Berkeley/Politico/Citrin Center poll taken earlier this month found that California voters resoundingly want redistricting power kept with the state’s independent commission. But another survey by the same coalition last week found that 63% of respondents think California should “fight back” against efforts in Texas and other Republican-led states to stack the deck in Congress.
Typically, Congressional districts are redrawn every 10 years, immediately following the release of U.S. Census results. Lines are agreed upon by California’s 14-member independent redistricting commission, a power it has controlled since 2010. If Newsom’s measure is approved, these new maps would circumvent the current ones until the state’s independent redistricting commission draws new boundary lines in 2031.
A mid-decade redistricting is rare, and usually only happens as the result of a court order that found some violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Proponents of Newsom’s plan, like former Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Barack Obama have lauded it as a necessary response to the Trump Administration’s own push to strengthen Republican power in Texas.
The resolution reiterates California’s support for “fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions,” and asks for federal legislation to require a system nationwide.
It also has trigger language, meaning the new maps would only take effect if Texas or another state moves forward with a mid-cycle redistricting.
But that hasn’t stopped rising opposition, most notably other California Republicans and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who argue that wresting map-drawing powers from the state’s nonpartisan commission undermines its democratic process and further erodes public trust.
Strickland called the move “authoritarian,” saying a system “where the elections are predetermined” and noncompetitive are not good for democracy.
“We have the gold standard here in California,” Strickland said, adding that unlike places like Texas, Illinois, Massachusetts — where legislators draw the maps — the system in California is designed to promote fair and engaging competition. “It’d be a shame to throw it away.”
It also won’t be cheap. An estimate by Assembly Republicans tallies the cost at more than $235 million to taxpayers, according to CalMatters.
At a town hall in Signal Hill on Monday, Garcia gave a preview of the pitch voters should expect from Democrats.
Speaking to a crowd of 70 or so people, he said he wholeheartedly supports the state’s independent commission, but, “If Republicans are going to go this extreme and try to rig an election, I think the governor’s right, and I think the response is appropriate.”
“I believe that Democrats can no longer play this respectability politics game and say we’re going to do the better thing,” Garcia continued. “I know not everyone agrees with that. ‘We’re going into the mud. We’re doing what they’re doing.’
“But I think we’ve reached a point where what’s on the line, I strongly believe, is a future where we can actually have a government that helps people and not cause so much damage to our democracy,” he said.
Editor’s note: This story was corrected to show Garcia is in his second term, not third.
The Lineage warehouse in Boyle Heights on August 31, 2026.
(
Brian Feinzeimer
/
The LA Local
)
Topline:
Lineage Logistics sued a solar power provider and its contractor Thursday, blaming them for the fire that destroyed its cold storage facility and plagued Boyle Heights and surrounding communities with polluted, foul-smelling air for months.
The lawsuit: The company accuses Altus Power, Inc., Los Palos Street Operating, LLC, and Pearce Services of failing to address faults in the massive solar array installed on the 500,000-square-foot facility’s roof. Lineage is seeking more than $1 billion in damages, alleging negligence and breach of contract caused the fire, forced the warehouse to shut down and led to a cleanup effort that has cost more than $100 million. Los Palos, an Altus subsidiary, disputed Lineage’s claims and said that since the cold storage company was the tenant of the building they were responsible for cleanup and debris removal.
The investigation: The fire remains under investigation by the Los Angeles Fire Department, and its cause has not yet been determined. But because both the June and 2024 fires appear to have started around the facility’s roof, the solar array has been long suspected of playing a role in the blaze.
Lineage Logistics sued a solar power provider and its contractor Thursday, blaming them for the fire that destroyed its cold storage facility and plagued Boyle Heights and surrounding communities with polluted, foul-smelling air for months.
The company accuses Altus Power, Inc., Los Palos Street Operating, LLC, and Pearce Services of failing to address faults in the massive solar array installed on the 500,000-square-foot facility’s roof. Faulty electrical in that array led to a fire in 2024, and the same problems sparked the fire on June 17, Lineage claims in the suit.
“This lawsuit is about Altus and Pearce starting this fire and then being nowhere to be found when the community needed help,” said Greg Lehmkuhl, president & CEO of Lineage, in a prepared statement.
The fire remains under investigation by the Los Angeles Fire Department, and its cause has not yet been determined.
But because both the June and 2024 fires appear to have started around the facility’s roof, the solar array has been long suspected of playing a role in the blaze.
Lineage is seeking more than $1 billion in damages, alleging negligence and breach of contract caused the fire, forced the warehouse to shut down and led to a cleanup effort that has cost more than $100 million.
Los Palos, an Altus subsidiary, disputed Lineage’s claims and said that since the cold storage company was the tenant of the building, they were responsible for cleanup and debris removal.
“Lineage’s statement is riddled with misinformation in a blatant attempt to deflect blame for their role in this matter, including any damage caused by the release of substances from the warehouse, not the solar panel,” a Los Palos spokesperson said by email.
A spokesperson for Pearce also disputed Lineage’s claims and said the company would be fighting the suit in court, adding they have been cooperating with the fire department’s investigation.
“Investigation into the fire’s cause, origin, and reasons for its spread remains ongoing, and it is premature for anyone to draw conclusions,” a spokesperson for the company said by email.
The company alleges in the suit that the solar provider used substandard equipment to connect electrical lines and that equipment started the Aug. 14, 2024 fire. The company told Altus, Los Palos, and Pearce, a subsidiary of real estate giant CBRE, to fix the faulty equipment before turning the solar array back on.
Altus and Pearce knew that about 200 faulty electrical connections had been identified by May 2026, including about 10 near the area where the June fire eventually broke out, the suit claims. Lineage says it told the contractors to delay turning the system back on until they provided proof the faults were fixed, but the contractors did so anyway.
“Altus and Pearce deliberately ignored Lineage’s request, prematurely re-energized the solar array, and negligently and recklessly caused this devastating fire,” the suit reads.
Mayor Karen Bass and other elected officials have said publicly that Lineage should not rebuild its facility and continue operating in Boyle Heights. The company missed a 45-day deadline to clean up the facility imposed by Bass in August.
Lineage has since announced it had completed cleanup of the remnants of the facility on Sept. 5. The suit also suggests the company could be planning to stay in Boyle Heights, rather than simply seeking reimbursement for the fire.
The city’s Department of Building and Safety has put its plans to rebuild on hold, and South Coast Air Quality Management District has also issued multiple notices of violation over pollution from food that rotted inside the facility for months.
“This was a solar fire, not a warehouse fire,” reads a press release announcing the suit had been filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court Thursday. “Cold storage is not a risk to communities — it is an essential service that lowers food costs, expands food access and creates jobs,” it added.
Fiona Ng
is LAist's deputy managing editor and leads a team of reporters who explore food, culture, history, events and more.
Published September 10, 2026 3:58 PM
Flowers are left at the Sept. 11 Memorial and Museum in 2024, which is located on the land where the Twin Towers once stood before they were destroyed.
(
Spencer Platt
/
Getty Images
)
Topline:
Here's a list of events in L.A. and O.C. counties on Friday and Saturday remembering 9/11.
Read on... to see when and where events are scheduled near you.
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.
A new federal lawsuit filed Thursday accuses the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the FBI and other federal agencies of violating the First Amendment and privacy rights of observers.
About the lawsuit: The lawsuit describes disturbing encounters seven Common Cause members had with federal officers in Maryland, Minnesota and New Jersey after trying to observe immigration enforcement. They include being photographed, followed, reported to police, pepper-sprayed or threatened with a visit to their home by federal officers. Federal officers did show up at one Common Cause member's Minnesota home.
Other lawsuits pending: The new lawsuit follows a handful of other cases brought by observers arguing First Amendment violations, but it is the most sweeping to date, as it includes incidents from multiple states and seeks national relief. It is asking a judge in Washington, D.C., to bar federal agencies from intimidating or retaliating against observers.
For months, Minneapolis resident Michael Khalili drove around the Twin Cities area observing and documenting the activities of federal immigration officers after they swarmed his city last winter as part of an unprecedented surge.
He points out that when federal immigration officers fatally shot fellow Minneapolis observer Alex Pretti in January, it was bystander videos that debunked inaccurate information Trump administration officials were spreading about Pretti, such as that he had committed an act of domestic terrorism and was a "would-be assassin."
"That's the only reason why the government's lies fell apart," Khalili said. "And that's why it's critical that people are out there."
But the 47-year-old father of two stopped observing ICE in recent months due to mounting risk and pressure from his family. Khalili said he follows the law when he drives behind ICE vehicles and is exercising his constitutional rights. But he said he's had repeated tense exchanges with federal officers who have taken photos of him and his vehicle, and told him to stop.
A day after one such exchange in March, Khalili's Global Entry status was revoked (until a HuffPost journalist inquired about it, and it was reinstated). On another occasion in May, he said a state trooper threatened him with a harassment charge for following ICE. Then in June, after 15 Minnesota activists were criminally indicted for conspiracy to impede or injure an officer, Khalili realized one of the counts against a defendant in that case was for following ICE vehicles across state lines in May on the same day Khalili had been warned he could be charged for following ICE. Khalili's wife became worried.
"She was concerned that federal agents could show up at our home and could arrest me in front of our children," Khalili said. "And so I agreed to stop doing this."
But Khalili hasn't given up his quest to hold the federal government accountable. He is now a named plaintiff in a new federal lawsuit filed Thursday, along with the nonprofit Common Cause, that accuses the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the FBI and other federal agencies of violating the First Amendment and privacy rights of observers.
The new lawsuit follows a handful of other cases brought by observers arguing First Amendment violations, but it is the most sweeping to date, as it includes incidents from multiple states and seeks national relief. It is asking a judge in Washington, D.C. to bar federal agencies from intimidating or retaliating against observers.
"The right of citizens to criticize and hold our government accountable is the backbone of American democracy – and it is under attack," Common Cause's vice president for litigation, Maryam Jazini Dorcheh, told NPR. "We want to make sure we're promoting participation in the political process. And obviously, if government officials are criminalizing peaceful observation, that hinders our mission," Jazini Dorcheh said.
NPR did not receive an immediate response from DHS or DOJ about the lawsuit's allegations. The FBI declined to comment.
The lawsuit describes disturbing encounters seven Common Cause members had with federal officers in Maryland, Minnesota and New Jersey after trying to observe immigration enforcement. They include being photographed, followed, reported to police, pepper-sprayed or threatened with a visit to their home by federal officers. Federal officers did show up at one Common Cause member's Minnesota home.
Observers film as ICE agents leave a residence on Jan. 28, 2026 in Minneapolis. NPR has documented numerous instances of other people legally observing ICE, describing intimidation and threats from the federal government.
(
Stephen Maturen
/
Getty Images
)
In another instance, the suit alleges that ICE officers told local police to ban an unnamed Common Cause member from a public parking lot outside of an ICE facility in Maryland, where the member was observing, and told the member they knew who they were because they had put their face through a facial recognition database.
The 94-page complaint also draws from declarations filed in previous cases on behalf of observers in additional states, including Illinois, Maine and Tennessee.
The events described in the complaint are "not one-off activities. This is not about, like, 'Oh, some folks got out of hand in one place,'" said Danielle Lang, the vice president of voting rights and rule of law at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, which is litigating the case. "This is a top-down policy of retaliation and it needs to be addressed as such."
The lawsuit lists multiple directives from the Trump administration, including President Trump's National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7) and the DOJ's memo to operationalize it, which link impeding immigration enforcement and extreme views on migration to domestic terrorism. The NSPM-7 memo was the basis for the federal government to investigate and spy on activists in Minnesota, which ultimately led to the charges against 15 people for conspiracy to impede ICE.
Additionally, the suit lists public statements and internal memos that equate observers who record federal officers with "violent rioters" and "domestic terrorists," to argue there is a national policy in place to retaliate against observers. Furthermore, the Trump administration repealed guardrails that could have prevented federal officers from using facial recognition and license plate readers against peaceful observers, and DHS dismantled its Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the suit argues.
The suit alleges that the federal government's retaliation against observers includes threatening force or arrest, collecting observers' personal information to intimidate them, using force, pursuing criminal charges, and imposing civil penalties such as administrative subpoenas or revoking observers' Global Entry or TSA PreCheck status.
Michael Khalili was eager to join the Common Cause lawsuit to help fellow observers, since in his case there is documentation of some of his encounters.
"If the paper trail for the petty things that they did to me can keep somebody else from being pepper-sprayed or murdered, like, why would I not do that? How could I not do that?" he told NPR.
Last month he requested access to his state motor vehicle records on the number of times law enforcement officials have queried his license plate, driver's license or name and date of birth. Before he started observing, there were only two such queries. But since March 2026, law enforcement queried him 55 times, a detail that is included in the lawsuit.
In addition, he has a March email from Customs and Border Protection notifying him that his Global Entry membership was revoked. Though the email only stated that the reason given for the change was "Your Global Entry has been revoked," it came one day after ICE officers stopped him, took photos of him and his license plate and told him to stop following them. Other observers in other states have also had their Global Entry status taken away, and some, like Khalili, had theirs reinstated after a reporter inquired.
Khalili still suspects he is on a federal list of some kind, or that there is a flag on him. He recently went on vacation to Ireland with his family and when returning to the U.S, he was referred for additional questioning by U.S. immigration officials.
He hopes this lawsuit can help bring about corrective changes and guardrails after what he calls a "nightmare" that the country and Minneapolis have been through.
"And so that not only will I be able to go out and observe if I so choose, but that there's no reason why I have to go out and observe," Khalili said.
Gab Chabrán
covers what's happening in food and culture for LAist.
Published September 10, 2026 2:06 PM
A finished pan of Chef Joshua Whigham's paella at Casa Leo's monthly Paella Drop, ready to be served to guests.
(
Courtesy Casa Leo
)
Topline:
Chef Joshua Whigham's monthly "paella drop" at Casa Leo in Los Feliz has grown from a 20-guest experiment into a waitlisted fixture.
Tell me more: Each version of his paella — from market mushrooms and truffle to chicken and langoustine — is rooted in a different Spanish region. Casa Leo was added to the Michelin Guide California this year — just over a year after opening.
Why is it important? Most Angelenos' idea of paella starts and stops at chicken, shrimp and saffron rice — the version built for tourists. Whigham, a 15-year veteran of award-winning chef José Andrés' kitchens, is using his monthly drop to highlight the dish’s variety with Southern California produce.
Mark the date: The next drop is on Sept. 20 and features a cuttlefish paella.
Casa Leo is a small Spanish restaurant located in Los Feliz near Griffith Park, where Chef Joshua Whigham is quietly bringing his own fresh approach to Spanish cooking — one that's specific and ingredient-driven in a way you'd be hard-pressed to find anywhere else in the city.
Whigham spent 15 years working under José Andrés — the Michelin-starred, James Beard Award-winning Spanish chef — before striking out on his own a little over a year ago with Casa Leo. The restaurant has already been added to the Michelin Guide California and has built a reputation for a seasonal, genuine, personal approach. That shows up across the menu, from cocas (Iberian flatbreads) to a trout en escabeche dish inspired by Martín Berasategui, the Basque chef often credited as a pioneer of modern Spanish cuisine.
Paella drop
One Sunday each month, Whigham hosts a "paella drop," cooking the paella outside the restaurant on a propane rig built to fit the giant pan he uses. Originally open to just 20 guests, the pop-up has grown in popularity as word has spread — Whigham has incrementally raised the cap over time, and now cooks with an even larger pan that can accommodate up to 70 guests.
It’s a setup that gets a lot of attention. He recalls a group of cyclists zipping by one day, with one of them yelling, "Holy shit, that smells good."
Chef Joshua Whigham stands beside the finished paella, cooked on a custom propane rig large enough to hold his oversized pan.
(
Courtesy CASA LEO
)
"Paella is Spain's national dish," Whigham says — and for many Americans, it's the only regional dish they know by name. Most Americans picture one version of paella — chicken, shrimp, saffron-yellow rice — but the dish looks different depending on where in Spain you are. While the dish has roots in the southeastern region of Valencia, its ingredients and preparation vary widely throughout the country.
Showcasing that variety is one of Whigham’s aims. And he does it with strict adherence to tradition — he'll never include chorizo, since its heavy smoke and paprika flavors, he says, completely overpower the subtle, delicate taste of the saffron, broth and rice.
In August, the paella included market mushrooms, summer truffle, chicken and langoustine.
The next drop, on Sept. 20 (which just so happens to be World Paella Day), is a cuttlefish (sepia) paella.
Whigham wanted the drops to serve as an opportunity to activate the space in ways beyond regular brunch and dinner service.
Not a tourist menu
Whigham says people's exposure to Spanish cuisine often stops at gazpacho, jamón, and that one paella experience they had while studying abroad in college.
His approach, honed over almost two decades of cooking Spanish food, involves first surveying a dish's regional origins and then adapting it using Southern California ingredients, in a process Whigham calls "giving a traditional dish a sense of place."
"That's the path I'm on — taking traditional dishes and making them ours,” he adds.
A plated portion of Casa Leo's paella, served with a side of aioli and topped with edible flowers and microgreens.
(
Casa Leo
)
For example: marmitako, a humble Basque fisherman's dish traditionally made with tuna and potato, with a base consisting of tomato, bell pepper, red onion and fish stock. Whigham noticed poblano peppers were "exploding at the market" and swapped them in for the green bell peppers, using the same process and proportions — resulting in a richer tone, more of a capsicum flavor and a "nice low-key heat." Paired with the chili de árbol spice, it made the dish "warmer and richer and a little deeper in flavor."
Less than two years in, Whigham says the Michelin recognition was a lovely surprise. "We weren't looking for it," he says. "This is what I do. I don't know how to do anything else but this."
Still, he feels the weight of its importance: "A good restaurant, you feel it — the pulse of it, the heartbeat. That's what I want for people."
Casa Leo
Location: 4500 Los Feliz Blvd., Suite C, Los Angeles
