The Brief

In a vote that will be closely watched nationwide, Santa Ana, the county seat of Orange County, could become the first city in California to allow non-U.S.citizens to vote in municipal elections.

Voters in the city of about 310,000 residents will decide on Measure DD when they cast their Nov. 5 ballots.

In California, non-U.S.citizens are currently permitted to vote in school board elections in San Francisco. Oakland passed a similar measure, but has not yet put it into practice. That includes permanent residents, work visa holders, refugees and undocumented immigrants. Allowing votes to be cast by non-citizens in the U.S. actually has a long history (more on that soon.)

That said, Santa Ana’s move comes at a time when Republicans have made opposing voting by non-citizens one of their platforms going into the November elections. In Congress, conservatives have advocated for the SAVE (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility) Act to require proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, even tying it to the government spending package. And just a short distance away in Huntington Beach, earlier this year voters passed a voter ID measure that Gov. Gavin Newsom has since moved to block.

The push to allow non-citizens to vote in Santa Ana marks the polar opposite. If Measure DD passes, political science experts told LAist they can see it offering a blueprint for other cities to follow — depending on how it plays out in practice.

History of noncitizen voting in the country

Louis DeSipio, UC Irvine professor of political science and Chicano/Latino studies, said in the late 1800s and early 1900s, around half of the states in the nation allowed non-U.S. citizens to vote in state elections.

The motivation for states, he said, was “to encourage immigrants to pick living in one state over another, and they felt that the sort of encouragement to move to a state that allowed noncitizen voting was that opportunity to be able to participate in governance.”

Beginning in the 1900s, DeSipio said this trend declined. Reformers called for taking elections out of the hands of politicians and placing them into the hands of nonpartisan bodies, like the electoral commissions of today.

Fernando Guerra, director of the Thomas and Dorothy Leavey Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University, said the “red scare” in the 1940s and '50s contributed to the blocking of non-U.S. citizens from voting, as Sen. Joseph McCarthy used fear tactics and intimidation to campaign against the spread of Communism.

Yes, non-U.S. citizens can be allowed to vote, in some instances

While federal law explicitly prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, that ban does not extend to the local and state level. Legislation passed in 1996, known as The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, provides provisions for noncitizens to vote in non-federal elections if they are "authorized to vote for such other purpose under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance.”

While still rare, such provisions are currently in practice.

In addition to measures in place in San Francisco and Oakland, three cities in Vermont allow non-U.S. citizens to cast ballots. Non-U.S. citizens can also vote in some cities in Maryland (in Takoma Park that dates back three decades), as well as in Washington D.C., where a voting measure recently passed. These votes are limited to local elections and school board races.

Despite being afforded the right to vote, turnout and registration by non-citizens remains low.

The case for Santa Ana opening voting

Current registration data for Orange County shows about 132,000 of Santa Ana's 310,000 residents are registered to vote in the upcoming election. About 41% of Santa Ana's resident were born outside of the U.S., according to census data.

Laura Pantoja has been living in Santa Ana for 28 years. Panoja, who immigrated from Mexico and is not a U.S. citizen, said she believed that if voters approve Measure DD, “it would be a model to follow for a democratic system where all people are heard.”

“When people listen to us, it gives us a feeling of belonging and participation that is very important for building a community,” Pantoja said.

Sarai Arpero, also a non-U.S. citizen, has lived in Santa Ana for more than 20 years. During this time, she said she has seen representatives come and go in the city council, in various positions of power, and things haven't improved.

“Things have gotten a bit worse, in many areas, in health, in security,” she said.

If Measure DD passes, she said, it will “create a balance and equilibrium” in local politics.

“We are not given a Social Security number to work or permission to work with dignity. But we are given an identification number, the ITIN, to file taxes every year,” Arpero said.

Having the ability to vote, Arpero said, will allow her to have a say in housing, security and economic policies in the city. She said expanding voting to non-citizens would mean elected officials would better represent communities instead of being pushed by people with the money to influence elections.

The case against Measure DD

Those who oppose the measure — including Mayor Valerie Amezcua — say the city would be forced to pay to make costly changes in how elections are run in the city. The onus on running elections in the city is currently with the Orange County Registrar of Voters. If the measure passes, opponents say, the city would have to run their own elections.

They say those extra costs would take money away from first responder budgets, as well as from city services, like fixing potholes.

In May, specific language on the ballot measure was challenged in court by critics who called it “unlawfully partisan” because it included references to "taxpayers and parents," which critics said was a bid to cast the measure in a more favorable light. A judge agreed and ordered the language to be reworded on the ballot measure.

James Lacy, who brought the lawsuit against the Santa Ana ballot measure, previously challenged non-U.S. citizen voting efforts in Oakland and San Francisco.

Lacy, speaking on LAist's AirTalk radio program, said he does not live in Santa Ana, but is encouraging friends to vote against the measure because "when you disconnect the vote from citizenship, what you do is you devalue citizenship and you devalue the aspirational quality of citizenship and belonging."

What's next

UC Irvine's DeSipio said that if Santa Ana’s measure passes, it could lead to ballot measures in other cities in Southern California, particularly those with large longterm immigrant populations.

"Where immigrants are connected to the local community, and have been involved in the civic life of those communities for a long time, you'll see more interest in exploring non-citizen voting," he said.

Loyola Marymount's Guerra said other cities will likely take a wait-and-see approach, noting they’ll want to know how Santa Ana implements the measure. They'll also keep a close eye on potential lawsuits opposing the measure.

Guerra said there are five key factors other cities will consider:

1. Is it the right thing to do?
2. Will it pass?
3. Will it survive a legal challenge?
4. What will be the implemented cost?
5. Do you want to do this in your jurisdiction?

Editor's note: Fernando Guerra is a lifetime trustee of Southern California Public Radio, LAist's parent company.

Associate Producer Gillian Morán Pérez contributed to this report.

When California State University paid OpenAI $17 million last year to give campuses unlimited access to a high-powered educational version of ChatGPT, the goal was to help students learn to use artificial intelligence for their education and future careers. However, the announcement came as a surprise to faculty and students, who were left on their own to figure out how to use AI ethically.

Afraid students would use ChatGPT Edu to cheat, many professors turned to in-class tests using bluebooks and scantrons, or employed faulty AI detectors like TurnItIn to catch AI-generated work. Meanwhile, other faculty have embraced ChatGPT and made it part of their curriculum. This all has left students confused over the use of AI in their courses.

A recent Cal State survey of over 94,000 students and university employees found 52% of faculty reported AI having a negative effect on their teaching and 67% of students felt their professors don’t teach them how to use AI effectively.

Now, as Cal State approaches the end of its 18-month contract with OpenAI this July, the university system has not announced whether it will renew the deal. Some faculty at San Francisco State University have begun a petition calling on Cal State Chancellor Mildred Garcia to end the partnership.

The Cal State Chancellor’s office points out that the AI survey found 64% of students, faculty and staff said AI has affected their learning experience at their university positively, and 63% said they’ve seen more opportunities on their campus to learn about AI.

“Our systemwide AI survey results reflect what we are seeing across our universities — widespread engagement with AI tools and technologies,” wrote Cal State spokesperson Amy Bentley-Smith in an email.

The university system left it up to campuses to dictate the proper uses of the chatbot while offering tools and training on a website called AI Commons. But students and faculty say those resources have not been enough. As of April, only 0.7% of students and 16% of faculty have completed the voluntary training, based on data provided by Bentley-Smith.

Assemblymember Mike Fong introduced Assembly Bill 2392 in February, which would require Cal State and California Community Colleges, as well as request University of California schools, to provide training on any AI product deployed on campuses.

Last fall, Fong and the Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education questioned Cal State officials about planning around the AI initiative.

“During the joint hearing on higher education and privacy, discussions revealed that California State University campuses have adopted AI tools without consistent guidance or training, raising concerns around data privacy, academic integrity, and equitable use,” said Fong in an email to CalMatters.

While a few students and faculty testified at the hearing, others have continued to echo those issues.

“I’m not sure [Cal State] realized how much new work it would require, how much revision to the old way of doing things it would require,” said Ryan Jenkins, the chair of the AI Task Force for Cal Poly San Luis Obispo’s faculty union chapter.

Students want to be a part of AI decisions

Cal State Northridge communications major Katie Karroum was shocked when she saw the announcement about ChatGPT Edu last year. As the vice president of systemwide affairs for the Cal State Student Association, she would have expected the chancellor’s office to meet with the student organization that represents over 470,000 students throughout the state.

“We were not consulted when the contract was signed, and we weren’t even given a heads up,” Karroum said.

Cal State chose OpenAI as the least-costly option, according to assistant vice chancellor of academic technology services Leslie Kennedy. The contract aimed to give everyone free access to ChatGPT Edu across all 22 campuses. Previously, campuses and individuals were paying for their own upgraded ChatGPT accounts that allow users to generate content like images and research reports without the limitations of the free version.

The contract with OpenAI was signed in January 2025, revealed later that month at a Board of Trustees meeting, and formally announced through a systemwide press release in February 2025, which is how Karroum found out.

In a meeting of the Cal State Student Association last October, student representatives from each campus told Karroum that they saw a lack of justice for students accused of using generative AI to cheat, and that they were concerned about the data collected from the chatbot being shared.

ChatGPT Edu at Cal State is defaulted to not use data for training models, but users can opt to allow their data to be shared, according to testing by CalMatters.

Students have also complained about the absence of a consistent AI policy in their classes, according to an open letter published by Karroum. At most campuses, professors get to decide their classroom policies, including about AI.

Yagmur Wernimont, a sophomore at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, said that although AI is used for automation and robotics in her intended agriculture field, she still does not use the technology herself because she thinks “it’s making us dumber” and doesn’t promote learning. She also watched herself fall behind while a classmate used ChatGPT to get a 100% on an assignment.

While her professor verbally told the class at the beginning of the quarter not to use AI, the rule was not on the syllabus, nor was a clear consequence for using AI. Wernimont said this may have given students a loophole for using it.

At Cal State Bakersfield, Emily Callahan, dean of students for academic integrity, said there has been a steady uptick of students reported for improper use of AI. She said students are using the chatbot to gain an unfair advantage over others.

Wernimont has also witnessed a divide between professors over AI. While one of her professors required the use of Google NotebookLM, an AI-powered note-taking app, an English teacher told Wernimont’s class that she was sad students would be using AI for writing, but shared a presentation on ways to cite the tool anyway.

“They’re all having different ways and ideas how to do it,” she said. “And it’s kind of conflicting as a student.”

Kennedy said the university system hasn’t excluded anybody from the discussion around AI. The Chancellor’s Office started a generative AI committee in 2024 that includes students and faculty.

“It was the committee’s recommendations that served as the basis for the CSU to identify, evaluate, and negotiate with multiple companies who at the time offered plans designed specifically to help bring AI tools to higher education institutions,” said Cal State’s chief information officer Ed Clark in an email. “Their assessment and feedback have been and continue to be essential to how the CSU implements its AI strategy that is both cost-effective and secure.”

A new board formed after the implementation of ChatGPT Edu focuses on California’s workforce by including representatives from technology companies. Cal State Student Association President Tara Al-Rehani said that while she is part of that board, it makes no final policy or guidance decisions on AI use.

Karroum said although students need to learn how to use AI, she doesn’t like feeling part of an experiment.

“I think that we’re being treated as, like, test rats right now because there’s no policy and there’s no guidance,” Karroum said.

Faculty introduce new classroom policies on AI 

Faculty leaders said they also were caught off guard with the ChatGPT deal. According to the Cal State survey, 59% of faculty regularly use AI in teaching and research, and 68% said they include an explicit statement on AI use.

According to a repository of more than 200 AI syllabus policies housed on Cal Poly San Luis Obispo’s website, one criminal justice professor from Cal State Fullerton describes in the syllabus when, why and how students should use AI. The professor also includes an example of a good AI disclosure statement from a student who outlined their use of ChatGPT for an assignment.

The AI Commons website states that faculty ultimately decide how they want to implement generative AI into their curriculum,taking into consideration whether it might improve teaching and learning in their classroom like any new technology.

Jenkins, who teaches philosophy at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, gives exams in class using blue books and scantrons to avoid any potential for students to cheat with AI. When ChatGPT was first released in 2022, Jenkins tested the chatbot by giving it a reading quiz. It gave all the right answers, alarming Jenkins that his students might use the technology while taking tests online. Today, Jenkins tells his students to treat AI like any other source when using its outputs for an assignment, but still proctors exams in-class.

“The bread and butter of philosophy is reflecting on your own ideas and trying to sort out what you believe and why,” Jenkins said. “If you have a tool that does that for you, then you’re being denied an opportunity to practice that skill.”

Jenkins said he does not have an AI statement in his syllabus because neither the department nor Cal Poly has provided one to use. On its website, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo links to the AI Commons as well as an AI statement builder from Pepperdine University for faculty to use. But the university does not require any specific statement from professors.

At Cal State Fullerton, Shelli Wynants helps faculty decide how to use AI in their classrooms through her role in the university’s faculty development center. She also teaches students in her child and adolescent studies courses to critically review AI output, and make sure they are remaining “the thinker and the decision maker” in the process.

Wynant said she refers to AI as an “assistant” or “teammate,” but emphasizes it should never replace human judgment. She has found that many of her students who plan careers in teaching want to learn how to use AI responsibly for the sake of their future students. “These students need to get up to speed because they’re going to be the ones teaching students digital literacy,” she said.

In August 2025, the Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education questioned Cal State officials about planning around the AI initiative. Representatives of the Academic Senate, Cal State Student Association, California Faculty Association and Cal State Employees Union spoke to the Assembly committee about their discontent over the contract with OpenAI.

“We understand all these criticisms and concerns, and they’re valid,” said Cal State’s chief information officer Ed Clark at the meeting. “The best way to deal with those concerns is to have our universities participate in helping to shape the future of these technologies. We can’t just sit back and let it go by.”

Students still need support, even with AI chatbots   

Staff at university tutoring centers are struggling to advise students who say faculty are blaming them for cheating by using the very AI tools the university system wants them to learn to use. According to the Cal State AI survey, 78% of students, faculty and staff said the ethical use of AI is a major concern.

Seher Vora, the coordinator for San Jose State University’s writing center, created an AI Writer Toolbox after conversations with tutors about students who were being penalized by professors for using AI. The toolbox helps students work with AI responsibly, including how to properly cite AI use and not using the chatbot for generating work that is not their own.

The toolbox also includes a disclosure tool that allows students to fill out a form outlining their use of AI for an assignment. The form generates a certificate for students to submit with their work.

The writing center at San Jose State advises students to check with their professors if they are unsure what uses of AI they accept. Vora hopes her work with the toolbox will encourage education around AI, for both students and faculty.

“We have to stay on top of it,” she said. “It’s changing every day.”

Angel Corzo is a contributor with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.

Orange County prosecutors have charged a woman with involuntary manslaughter after her 14-year-old son allegedly struck and killed an 81-year-old man with an e-motorcycle.

Tommi Jo Mejer was initially charged with child endangerment and accessory. She was arrested days after her teenager allegedly struck Ed Ashman while doing wheelies in the middle of the street in Lake Forest in April.

On Friday, Orange County District Attorney's Office added the charge of involuntary manslaughter — one day after Ashman, a Vietnam veteran and substitute teacher, died.

Prosecutors say the e-motorcycle the boy was riding is 16 times more powerful than an e-bike and requires a license and a minimum age of 16 to ride. They also say Mejer, in another incident last year, was warned by law enforcement of potential criminal charges if her son continued to illegally ride the bike.

Mejer is scheduled to be arraigned on May 21. If convicted on all counts she faces up to seven years and eight months in prison.

Since January, the Orange County District Attorney’s office has filed child endangerment charges against three parents for allowing their children to illegally ride e-motorcycles.

A federal appeals court has restricted access to one of the most common means of abortion in the U.S. by blocking the mailing of mifepristone.

A panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is requiring that the abortion pill be distributed only in-person at clinics.

Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, the two makers of mifepristone, have directly asked the Supreme Court to grant them emergency relief, to allow mifepristone to remain available through telemedicine as the case continues.

"The Fifth Circuit's order has unleashed regulatory chaos," reads the GenBioPro emergency application to the Supreme Court. The brief also points out that access via pharmacies is restricted by the new order. "Today, patients who planned to pick up a mifepristone prescription at their local pharmacy may no longer be able to do so, regardless of which state they live in."

Since the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed enforcement of abortion bans, prescriptions by mail has become a major way that abortions are provided — including to states where bans are in place.

"Every abortion facilitated by FDA's action cancels Louisiana's ban on medical abortions and undermines its policy that 'every unborn child is human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person,'" the ruling states.

Judges have long deferred to the Food and Drug Administration's judgments on the safety and appropriate regulation of drugs.

FDA officials under President Donald Trump have repeatedly stated the agency is conducting a new review of mifepristone's safety, at the direction of the president.

The appeals court judges noted in their ruling that FDA "could not say when that review might be complete and admitted it was still collecting data."

In a court filing, Louisiana's attorney general and a woman who says she was coerced into taking abortion pills requested that the FDA rules be rolled back to when the pills were allowed to be prescribed and dispensed only in person.

A Louisiana-based federal judge last month ruled that those allowances undermined the state's abortion ban but stopped short of undoing the regulations immediately.

"This is going to affect patients' access to abortion and miscarriage care in every state in the nation," said Julia Kaye, an ACLU lawyer. "When telemedicine is restricted, rural communities, people with low incomes, people with disabilities, survivors of intimate partner violence and communities of color suffer the most."

Mifepristone was approved in 2000 as a safe and effective way to end early pregnancies. It is typically used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol.

Misoprostol is an older medication that is also used to treat gastric ulcers. It can be used alone to induce abortion and may remain available via telemedicine. The two-drug regimen is preferred because it generally causes less cramping and bleeding for most patients.

When mifepristone was approved in 2000, the FDA initially imposed strict limits on who could prescribe and distribute the pill — only specially certified physicians and only after an in-person appointment where the person would receive the pill.

Both those requirements were dropped during the COVID-19 years. At the time, FDA officials under President Joe Biden said that after more than 20 years of monitoring mifepristone use, and reviewing dozens of studies involving thousands of women, it was clear that women could safely use the pill without direct supervision.

The conservative-majority high court overturned abortion as a nationwide right in 2022 but unanimously preserved access to mifepristone two years later.

That 2024 decision sidestepped the core issues, however, by ruling that the anti-abortion doctors behind the case didn't have legal standing to sue.

NPR staff Selena Simmons-Duffin and Diane Webber contributed to to this report.
Copyright 2026 NPR