California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks about California redistricting plans at a press conference at the Democracy Center, Japanese American Museum in Los Angeles. Both sides of the redistricting battle are reviving strategies from California’s 2021 recall attempt against Gov. Newsom.
(
Mario Tama
/
Getty Images
)
Topline:
Similar to the failed recall effort against Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021, the vote over redistricting is turning on opinions of him and Trump.
Where things stand: California voters may be feeling some déjà vu as campaigns on both sides of a redistricting battle return to similar playbooks from past political clashes here — including the unsuccessful 2021 recall of Newsom.
Why it matters: With Proposition 50, Newsom and fellow Democrats are asking voters to toss out the congressional maps created by an independent redistricting commission just a few years ago, and approve new districts aimed at giving Democrats five more seats in Congress. The measure was placed before voters after President Donald Trump urged Texas and other Republican-led states to redraw their maps to give the GOP an advantage in the 2026 midterms.
California voters may be feeling some déjà vu as campaigns on both sides of a redistricting battle return to similar playbooks from past political clashes here — including the unsuccessful 2021 recall of Gov. Gavin Newsom.
With Proposition 50, Newsom and fellow Democrats are asking voters to toss out the congressional maps created by an independent redistricting commission just a few years ago, and approve new districts aimed at giving Democrats five more seats in Congress. The measure was placed before voters after President Donald Trump urged Texas and other Republican-led states to redraw their maps to give the GOP an advantage in the 2026 midterms.
Just like the recall, which Newsom handily defeated by nearly 25 points, the Yes on 50 campaign is making sure to tie their measure to the president, national Republicans and the MAGA movement. Trump’s California approval rating generally hovers around 30% in independent polls.
“The overall messaging is this a measure that fights back against Trump and his policies,” said Yes on 50 senior adviser Jim DeBoo, who was Newsom’s chief of staff during the recall. “There’s a lot of similarities to the recall … The difference is, Democrats in the recall begrudgingly voted no. They were like, why are we doing this?”
This time, DeBoo said, the intensity among supporters is real — and it’s not just Democrats, but also a significant number of independent voters who are motivated to come out and vote against Trump.
“This is like anger and excitement, where the recall is just anger,” he said, adding that critics of the president have been looking for a way to push back on this Washington. “Most people who have an aversion to the administration don’t have a lot of actionable things they can do. And this is an actionable thing.”
The California State Capitol in Sacramento on May 6, 2025.
(
Beth LaBerge
/
KQED
)
And people get what Proposition 50’s about, he said — something the Yes on 50 campaign wasn’t sure would be the case when they started this truncated campaign this summer. It’s a complicated argument, he noted: Democrats need to not only explain redistricting to voters, but also convince them that Proposition 50 won’t eliminate the popular Independent Restricting Commission. Instead, it would only table the commission’s work until after the 2030 census.
Then, the Yes side needed to convince the electorate of their why: The ballot measure is needed to help ensure Trump doesn’t remain in control of all branches of government.
“When we first started, we were like, ‘This is gonna be tough from a persuasion perspective to not only convince independent voters or no party preference voters, but Democrats, that this is the right thing to do.’ And usually, in ballot measures in particular, complexity kills, simplicity sells — and this wasn’t simple,” he said.
But people get it, he said, noting that the campaign’s polling shows awareness of the measure above 80%. The national attention it garnered, especially when Texas Democrats fled their state to delay the passage of new Republican maps, was helpful, DeBoo said.
But Jessica Millan Patterson, who is chairing the No Campaign and previously ran the state Republican Party, said the Democratic strategy of attacking Trump is tired.
“They don’t have a playbook. They have one play and they play that every single time,” she said.
Patterson said a large swath of the electorate remains undecided and a range of voters — including disaffected Democrats and independents — are open to the argument the No side is making.
“This is far less partisan, despite what the Yes side is trying to do,” she said. “We talk about these lines that have been drawn by Democrats in a back room with very little public participation and D.C. lobbyists and map drawers that no one can name, that is when people are like this is fishy, this is shady, and I don’t want anything to do with it.”
So while Democrats lean into Proposition 50 as an answer to Trump, Patterson said Republicans — just like in the 2021 recall campaign — are banking on Newsom’s unpopularity with more conservative voters. The message:
“Gavin Newsom is redrawing these districts as a partisan power grab, not because he’s trying to fix a problem because we didn’t have a problem to fix,” she said.
That’s a smart move, said GOP strategist Rob Stutzman, who is not involved in either campaign.
Republican Assembly member James Gallagher speaks during a press conference ahead of a meeting of the California State Assembly in Sacramento.
(
Justin Sullivan
/
Getty Images
)
“Newsom isn’t just unpopular with Republicans, he actually triggers them,” said Stutzman, president of Stutzman Public Affairs. “The Republican motivation on this is Newsom. As much as you’re getting Democrats to turn out to vote against Trump, the Republican turnout mechanism is Newsom.”
DeBoo didn’t disagree.
“Republicans are pretty dug in,” he said “They may not be Trump people, but they have their feelings about Democratic leadership.”
Stutzman said both sides’ tactics make sense. Democrats, who hold a 20 point registration advantage over Republicans in the state, are simply trying to turn out their base and capitalize on Trump’s highly negative reputation here. Republicans are trying to shore up their base and attract other voters who are turned off by Newsom. The governor’s approval rating in an August poll was 51% — up from 46% in the spring and largely driven by Democrats and independent voters excited by his aggressive posture against Trump.
Just 9% of GOP voters gave the governor high marks in that poll — compared to 77% of Democrats.
“They have a huge plurality of Democrat voters that they just want to turn out,” Stutzman said. “It’s what we call a base election.”
Democrats may have also benefited politically from something that didn’t happen: Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who campaigned for the independent redistricting commission when it was created more than a decade ago, has come out against Proposition 50 but not hit the campaign trail.
Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at Town and Gown of USC.
(
Juliana Yamada
/
Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
)
Stutzman said Schwarzenegger’s lukewarm involvement — he has spoken out against the measure on TV and at at least one event, but not worked with the No on 50 campaign — makes sense given he’s not a fan of the president.
“Schwarzenegger is a critic of Trump, so he’s not exactly gonna feed the Republican base or be the face that they necessarily want to see, even though they may agree with him on this,” said Stutzman, who worked for Schwarzenegger when he was governor.
But the No side has been able to use Schwarzenegger’s appearances in their advertising, which Stutzman said could still be an effective tool in attracting some centrist or independent voters.
Early ballot returns show equal shares of Democrats and Republicans have already cast their votes early — but with the Democrats’ numerical advantage, that amounts to nearly twice as many votes for redistricting so far.
Those who haven’t voted yet will surely be hearing more about Proposition 50 as Nov. 4 approaches. It’s already ranking as one of the most expensive ballot fights in state history — with nearly $150 million raised on both sides — and there are still several weeks left until voting ends.
While voters are deciding whether to approve new maps, it may feel more like they’re really being asked to choose between Newsom and Trump.
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
