The Brief

LAist goes big on local elections. For the past few years, we’ve made our coverage more expansive and voter-centric with each cycle, even for the most obscure down-ballot races. It’s paid off in a big way, bringing in record-breaking digital traffic, memberships, donations and a growing reputation as Southern California’s best and most comprehensive local voter resource.

In the lead-up to the November 2024 election, we tried something new: bringing these voter resources directly to classrooms in the form of a workshop.

LAist piloted this workshop to help community members better understand how to research the local races on their ballot. We conducted it for more than 200 students in October, and the feedback was incredibly encouraging: Not only did participants tell us the workshops made them more prepared to vote in local races, but they also overwhelmingly said they were more likely to vote too.

The wheels in our heads have been turning ever since. What more can we do with these workshops in upcoming elections? And what can they do not just to engage people around elections, but also provide more local civic education in general?

We'll dig deeper into these questions below. But first, here’s a closer look at what we did.

A presentation slide from LAist's local ballot research workshops.

(

Courtesy Philip Goodrich

/

UCLA

)

The workshop: Understanding your local ballot

We designed a workshop that was an interactive, 90-minute session about how to research your ballot. We intentionally steered away from the presidential race everybody was talking about and instead focused in on the other 99% of the ballot that was all about local offices.

This was a natural fit with LAist’s work. Our core election product, Voter Game Plan, is meant to help people filling out their ballots who are seeking information about candidates running for local offices — info that in some cases can be nearly nonexistent elsewhere (think local judges, for example).

This workshop would extend that service further, helping people who weren’t even sure what the local offices were, let alone how to decide who to vote for. What do some of these local offices even do? How do you figure out who these candidates are and what they stand for? How would a local ballot measure affect your day-to-day life?

Here’s how the runthrough typically went:

1. Icebreaker: This was a quick fill-in-the-blank prompt: “Filling out my ballot makes me feel [blank] because [blank].” That let us know what the vibes were: Did people feel excited about voting? Anxious? Indifferent? And it helped us calibrate the tone of the rest of the session.
2. Mini-presentation: A quick 10-minute overview of why local offices matter to your day-to-day life.
3. Here's your ballot. What questions do you have? We gave everyone a sample ballot with one race on it, exactly as it appeared on the actual ballot — no context, just names and titles. Participants took 10 minutes to write down all the questions they would want to know in order to figure out how to make a decision.
4. Research! Gathering in small groups, people used whatever device they had on hand — a phone, a laptop or just talking with their neighbors — to figure out the answers to their questions.
5. Discuss. We regrouped to talk about what everyone found. How easy or hard was it to figure out the answers to their questions? What information was available and what wasn't? Then our team went through the questions we heard most often and how we as journalists went about figuring out the answers (many of which end up in our local voter guides).
6. Repeat. We did the exercise a second time, giving everyone a local ballot measure to decipher, research and discuss. People found this to be a notably different experience. This time there was a concrete outcome at stake, rather than vague possibilities of what a candidate might or might not do if elected into office.

We set up sessions at five locations in the lead-up to the November election, all scheduled in October 2024:

• East L.A. College, a community college.
• Cal State Los Angeles, a state college (one in-person session and one virtual).
• My Friend's Place, a local organization serving unhoused youth.
• University of Southern California, a private university.
• Otis College, a small private arts college.

Most of these sessions were arranged through preexisting relationships we had with faculty or staff members through LAist’s years of engagement work.

This workshop doesn’t have to be limited to schools, but classrooms were a natural environment to try this out. Faculty wanted to find ways to engage students with the election, and we wanted to better understand what younger voters — especially those who weren’t already in LAist’s existing audience — needed to make their decisions.

We tried these sessions in front of groups of all sizes — the largest one had about 180 students, while the smallest had just seven — all with different levels of familiarity and interest in local elections.

What participants told us

The overall feedback we heard from participants told us something really exciting — not only did the workshop help students feel more prepared to vote, but it also made them more willing to vote.

We heard this feedback in two ways: verbally during the sessions themselves, and through an anonymous online survey we distributed after the fact.

Out of about 225 students who participated in the workshops, 49 filled out the survey.

We asked everyone to rate how prepared they felt about voting before the workshop, on a scale of 1 to 5 — 1 being not at all prepared and 5 being very prepared. On average, students gave a rating of 2.3.

We asked them to rate their preparedness again after the workshop. The average jumped to 3.9.

In another question, we asked people to tell us whether they agreed with the following statement: "After this workshop, I am now more likely to vote in the Nov. 5 election."

Of the group, 42 out of 49 respondents — 85.7%  —  said they agreed or strongly agreed. Six were neutral. One strongly disagreed, although they wrote in comments elsewhere they were already planning to vote.

In open-ended responses, most of the participants described the workshop as informative and helpful. One mentioned it “made me comfortable in asking questions and allowing myself to not feel embarrassed about being confused”  — something we definitely aimed for.

The verbal feedback we heard during the session was encouraging too:

• Two students said they felt “better” after the workshop because they had a stronger idea of what one of the (very confusing!) ballot measures meant.
• One student who initially said he felt disconnected from the election because the presidential pick wouldn’t affect him either way later said he felt more interested in researching local measures.
• At My Friend’s Place, an organization that serves unhoused youth, attendees learned about Measure A, a county measure to raise the sales taxes to fund homeless services and affordable housing. Most told us they had never heard of the measure before, and one participant asked mid-presentation how to vote on it.

What we learned about LAist's election coverage

Not all feedback was glowing, but that didn’t mean it wasn’t valuable. In fact, the other comments we heard were incredibly useful — and highlighted more information gaps for our coverage to help fill. Here are a few of our takeaways:

• We need to help people feel less anxious about elections. Many told us the election made them anxious — how do you know if you’re making the “right” choice? The workshop itself didn’t do much to ease that anxiety. What else can we newsrooms do to address that? One possibility: Look for clearer ways to follow the people we elect and their actions in office, so that people can better understand the outcomes of their choices and build on that understanding with each election cycle. (This is something LAist is actively working on!)
• We should do what we can to make the research easier. One student said she felt disheartened by how much work it took to research just one race on a local ballot, especially for those without a college education. What more can we do as a newsroom to make the process easier for people, especially across different education backgrounds?
• Don’t skimp on the basics. During a discussion of one ballot initiative on whether to overhaul rent control laws in California, students asked questions like, “What’s rent control?” and “How do landlords price their apartments, anyway?” These questions led to great discussions and helped us realize there was a lot more groundwork we needed to lay for the average voter before discussing the ballot measure at play.
• People are interested in local issues. That doesn’t mean they’ll seek out the information. The most productive, engaging sessions we had were the ones in which attendance was mandatory for participants. Compared to those who voluntarily came to the workshop, mandatory participants were much less likely to be regular news readers or follow the big issues we discussed. Yet the mandatory sessions had more active conversations and more curiosity from participants about the underlying issues they were being asked to vote on. News organizations have a major opportunity to engage with these community members who are less likely to follow our work. We can provide directly helpful information, get them closer to the local issues that affect their lives and perhaps even convert them to future supporters — if journalists can find more ways to get in front of them.

LAist's Brianna Lee conducts a local ballot research workshop at Otis College in October 2024.

(

David Rodriguez

/

LAist

)

Bridging local news and civic education: What’s next?

We talk a lot about journalism as essential to civic engagement — getting people involved with their communities, fostering dialogue, holding officials accountable and empowering residents to vote.

The workshops showed us that there’s also a lot of room for journalism to do more in local civic education  —  helping people understand how local governments work, unpacking the basics of local issues like rent, and drawing clearer connections between actions like voting and the policies that shape our day-to-day lives.

LAist is thinking hard about ways we can use workshops to bring some of our other reporting closer to communities.

What about a workshop about building new housing in L.A.? A local civics workshop for high schoolers? What about ballot research workshops for specific groups, such as seniors, new citizens or formerly incarcerated voters?

We're actively exploring all these possibilities — and more.

• If you’re a local newsroom, educator or civic organization that wants to chat about anything similar you’re doing or thinking about, I’m always happy to talk! Email: blee@scpr.org.
• Does your organization want to financially support our work, which better equips voters to make decisions and become more engaged with issues in their communities? Email: grants@scpr.org.
• Empower more community-focused reporting by becoming an LAist member today at LAist.com/give.

Voters on Saturday rejected a measure that would have weakened California’s landmark environmental law by fast-tracking reviews for some projects.

With about 76% of votes counted, voters rejected Prop. 45 by 55.7% to 44.3%.

The vote maintains the status quo under the state’s Environmental Quality Act, which since 1970 has required public agencies to review project developments that could have harmful environmental impacts, and mitigate those harms.

“Californians have sent a clear message to corporate developers, utilities and data center builders that they will not stand for a broad assault at the ballot box on state law protecting our air, water and natural resources,” No on 45’s Woody Little said. “We were outspent but not outgunned.”

Supporters had said the changes would reduce building costs. The California Chamber of Commerce sponsored Proposition 45, the Building an Affordable California Act, which would limit the length of environmental reviews for projects deemed “essential” to 365 business days and require courts to resolve litigation in 270 calendar days. Those projects include housing, water, broadband and transit developments.

Proponents said the savings from building more quickly would pass to consumers and spent $41 million campaigning for the measure. The Building a Better California political action committee was the largest donor, giving $10 million to the campaign. The organization is funded partly by current and former Google executives Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt. Two of the largest investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison, together donated $4.4 million.

Environmental groups argued the measure would go too far in weakening a law meant to protect people from environmental harms. Opponents, including a coalition of environmental, health and union organizations, spent $30 million trying to stop it. Wendy Schmidt, a Democratic philanthropist, was the largest donor, giving $10 million to the campaign. The political action committee Clean and Healthy California Sponsored by Environmental Organizations contributed $7 million.

The California Democratic Party opposed the measure. The California Republican Party supported it, while county Republican groups were split.

Deborah Sivas, an environmental law professor at Stanford University, said Prop. 45 would radically change current law. It would shift power “away from local governments and to developers by giving them some new tools … and limiting what courts can do in terms of reviewing decisions that agencies and local governments make,” she said.

CEQA and housing

California’s environmental review law, signed in 1970, requires agencies to assess the environmental impacts of developments and help mitigate them.

Over decades, developers have raised concerns about the process, arguing litigation and bureaucracy slow down construction.

State legislators have tried to fix the problem by passing laws that exempt or streamline certain projects from environmental review. In 2025, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed laws that exempt many urban housing projects from the full review process.

But some supporters of Prop. 45, including the California Building Industry Association and the California Council for Affordable Housing, say those changes don’t go far enough.

“It’s an important piece of the puzzle, but (that type of housing) does not produce quickly or at scale,” said Jennifer Hernandez, an attorney who helped write the measure. “We need quicker, at scale, affordable housing.”

Supporters say Prop. 45 would help California redevelop large, unused sites like malls and parking lots into housing and make it easier to build away from urban areas.

Pro-housing groups, public agencies divided 

Pro-housing and local government groups usually support CEQA reform, but Prop. 45 has divided many of them.

Housing advocates in the Bay Area, including East Bay for Everyone and the Greenbelt Alliance, oppose the measure. Other Yes in My Backyard groups are neutral, including Abundant Housing Los Angeles and both California YIMBY and YIMBY Action — the movement’s two flagship advocacy groups.

The split between pro-housing groups lies in whether California should keep building outward onto undeveloped land or promote construction in urban centers. Some supporters, including Oakland Democratic Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, have said the state needs all types of housing.

Others say building away from urban centers would make it harder to address climate change.

“We believe we can (and must) solve the housing and climate crises simultaneously. That means building communities with denser housing and alternatives to automobile dependence,” wrote Max Dubler of California YIMBY in a blog post explaining the group’s neutral stance on Prop. 45.

Public agencies and local governments that could benefit from the building rules were also divided.

The California Municipal Utilities Association opposes the measure. But most other groups representing local governments, including the League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties, remained neutral.

Financial impacts for Prop. 45

Prop. 45 supporters argued that streamlining development would make life more affordable for Californians, but the long-term financial benefits are unclear.

An analysis by Blue Sky Consulting Group, commissioned by the California Chamber of Commerce, estimated the measure would produce $1.5 billion in savings and additional revenues for public agencies over 10 years that would reduce overall housing costs.

But the measure would initially cost local governments and public agencies more as they adjust to the measure’s rules, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan adviser to the Legislature.

Democrats have done well in recent elections when they win young voters by a margin of at least 20 points. On Tuesday, they carried Gen Z — those under 30 — by nearly 50 points, according to exit polling.

It's a stunning shift from 2024, when the party lost critical ground with young people. Long seen as a part of the Democratic base, voters under 30 shifted right towards Donald Trump, motivated by his pledge to better their economic prospects.

But this week, the youngest generation of voters issued a strong rebuke of Republicans, taking another chance on Democrats and their change-focused message at a moment when many of them feel as though the American Dream is out of reach.

How young voters powered Democrats to victory 

Americans ages 18-29 have a history of turning out at lower rates than older voters, and this year was no exception. Gen Z made up 11% of the total vote on Tuesday.

However, where young Americans may have made the greatest difference is on the margins in House and Senate races where Democrats flipped seats.

The Texas Senate race is a key example. Democrat James Talarico won the state by 12 percentage points; however, when looking at just Gen Z, he won it by 60 points.

Explaining the massive shift from 2024

When assessing gains more broadly, Democrats argue the party's strong slate of candidates helped drum up increased enthusiasm.

But another motivating factor remains strong opposition to Trump. Throughout his second term, Gen Z increasingly soured on the president, with some arguing he failed to make good on a number of core campaign promises — from pledging to lower prices and repeatedly vowing "no new wars," to calling for a crackdown on federal corruption and the release of the Epstein files.

Much of that disappointment was reflected in exit polling. Economic issues were the top concern for a plurality of 18- to 29-year-olds, at 43%, and these voters expressed broad frustrations with Trump's handling of the issue. More than eight in 10 said that Trump's policies have worsened economic conditions, with similar shares opposing his tariff strategy and the decision to go to war with Iran.

The young voters Trump lost

Early analysis from CIRCLE indicates that 15% of young people who backed Trump in 2024 voted for a Democratic House candidate in this year's midterms.

Democrats made gains with some young voters who backed Trump two years ago, including white men and Latino men, two blocs that narrowly voted Republican in 2024 and then voted blue on Tuesday by double digits. Democratic candidates also narrowed the margins with young rural voters and people without college degrees.  

Some of those gains may have been helped by young Trump voters who chose to sit this election out, but it's unclear how many of them there were.

How the election results broke down by age

The midterm results underscore how neither of the two major parties owns Gen Z, according to John Della Volpe, a left-leaning pollster who's extensively studied the politics of young Americans.

"The cohort of younger people in this cycle had a different set of experiences than the cohort of people two years ago, or four years before that," he said. "Every candidate, every party has to earn their votes."

Della Volpe, who runs the Harvard Youth Poll, notes that in the latest survey, released in October, there was a sizable enthusiasm gap between young Democrat and young Republican respondents. While half of Democrats said they definitely planned to vote, just a third of Republicans and less than a quarter of Independents said the same.

"I also think we shouldn't overread what's happened," he added. "Clearly a significant historic rebuke on the party in office — that's obvious — however, I think we need to more fully, kind of understand, the contour of the electorate, who showed up and who didn't show up."

By 2028, Gen Z and millennial voters will make up more than half of the electorate, a demographic shift with huge implications for Democrats and the GOP.

"Young adults can make a difference," said Elizabeth Matto, who serves as the director of the Center for Youth Political Participation at Rutgers University.

"They do care about politics. They can sway the outcome of elections. And they're a voting bloc worth paying attention to."
Copyright 2026 NPR

The morning after Tuesday's midterms was gloomy and rainy in Minneapolis, but people still gathered at the place where Border Patrol agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, a VA nurse and U.S. citizen, last January. All week, community members have come here to place their "I Voted" stickers at the memorial.

Nicki Adams, who dated Pretti and was his close friend for nearly 17 years, watched quietly as a woman added her sticker to a street lamp completely covered in the red decals.

"I wanted to see all the stickers. I just wanted to be here," she says. "It just means a lot to me. I think it would mean a lot to Alex, too."

A few blocks away, people left their stickers where an ICE officer killed Renee Good, a mom of three and a U.S. citizen, just a few weeks before Pretti's death. In Houston, they left them where an ICE officer killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a father of three and a Mexican immigrant, in July.

Adams says these stickers, and the election results this week, send a clear message to Congress: "You work for us, and please carry on these values that we care about … We want to be seen and heard and taken care of and have our neighbors taken care of."

The deaths of Pretti and Good during the ICE surge in Minneapolis marked a pivotal moment for the country, sparking intense public backlash to President Trump's aggressive deportation efforts. But federal law enforcement officials have given little indication they're progressing in investigating their deaths, or the deaths of at least seven other people killed by federal immigration agents since Trump took office again last year. DHS did not respond to an NPR request for the status of those investigations.

Now, after Democrats' sweeping wins this week, their deaths at the hands of immigration agents will likely be the targets of renewed investigations. With a majority in Congress, Democrats can issue subpoenas to the major players in Trump's mass deportation plan, compelling them to testify under oath before the legislature.

That could include White House Border Czar Tom Homan, former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, former Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, and White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, among others.

Congress can also demand internal documents, like use-of-force reports.

"They can dissect these individual shootings, and really unravel the story of what happened," says Naureen Shah, who leads the ACLU's immigration policy work.

Democrats have already held shadow hearings on the ICE shootings, during which they've called in family members and witnesses to testify.

But Shah says now Congress can ask key questions of top decision makers: What orders were given to immigration officers in the field? What was training like for these officers?

Who made the decision to paint Good and Pretti as threats, including calling Pretti a "would-be assassin" and a domestic terrorist, when video showed otherwise?

"It's like we can turn the faucet on and actually find out so much more," Shah says. "There's an aspect of this that is really about a kind of reckoning with how it's possible that things that seemed unthinkable could happen on American streets. How do you have that reckoning if you don't actually have the ability to force people to explain themselves?"

Democratic leaders have already said that's the plan.

Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, who is expected to lead the House Judiciary Committee, told NPR in a statement that Congress will use "every tool" at its disposal to investigate ICE and that it is time for the agency to "start answering to the American people."

California Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia, expected to lead the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, vowed to take on DHS and ICE abuses in a two-word statement: "Lawyer Up."

Mississippi Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, expected to lead the House Committee on Homeland Security, sent a letter on Wednesday to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, demanding the agency "comply with all document preservation requirements."

Illinois Democratic Rep. Delia Ramirez wrote on social media that Noem, Miller, Homan, Bovino and Mullin should "clear" their schedules.

In response to that, DHS general counsel James Percival said Democrats are "more interested in political shenanigans than in governing" but said the agency is prepared to "deal with this nonsense."

There are key limitations to what Democrats in Congress can do with their majority when it comes to ICE accountability, says Rachel Moran, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

Major changes, like clawing back funding for the agency, would require a veto-proof majority, something the Democrats don't have.

"You still have a president who has shown a complete lack of interest in accountability for federal agents and in fact, a great deal of knee jerk defensiveness about their conduct," Moran says.

In a statement, a White House spokesperson told NPR "if Democrats choose to pursue sham investigations and radical left policies, they are choosing to work against the American people."

Democrats, the statement added, "should be reminded that we still control the federal government and all of its powers."

But that's not true. Congress has its own powers, one of them being the ability to compel testimony. Moran says a deeper probe into the shootings could still serve important purposes, like making evidence available for states to use in their own criminal investigations.

Minnesota officials, for instance, have been fighting with the federal government to get evidence related to the Pretti and Good killings.

Brent Ganger, Renee Good's brother, says learning more information about his sister's death will be hard to hear, "but I think it's also super important for us to understand what happened that day. I don't want history to keep repeating itself."

It was painful, he says, to watch immigration agents kill more people after his sister. He thought her death would be a turning point. In a way, it might have been the start of one. After the surge in Minneapolis, most Americans said ICE had gone too far.

Ganger, who considers himself a moderate, was happy to see the Blue Wave this week. On election night, he was scrolling Instagram when he saw a photo of his sister's memorial site, with all the "I Voted" stickers.

"I was very grateful to see the repudiation of this administration from the country. It felt very supportive of my entire family," he says.

The next morning, in his home in Colorado, he got up and made biscuits and gravy, his sister's favorite breakfast.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Abraham Zavala was born at Adventist White Memorial. So were his kids. So late Friday, when he heard federal immigration agents were at the Boyle Heights hospital, and that local youth were out blowing whistles to warn neighbors, he went. 

“To me that’s sacred ground,” said Zavala, an organizer with Unión del Barrio.

“I’m a dad,” he said. “I wanted to be there to support the youth.”

He was among the Boyle Heights residents who converged on the hospital and stayed in a standoff with federal immigration agents into the early hours of Saturday. Agents detained at least two people, according to rapid response groups.

Neighbors alerted each other with noisemakers and fireworks. A woman pounded her pots and pans. Teenagers ran across Mariachi Plaza, shouting that ICE was in the area and urging residents to lock their doors. 

“Even though we’re afraid, you know we’re still showing up,” said Myra Vasquez, a Boyle Heights resident who rushed to White Memorial after hearing reports of ICE in the area. “We’re not going to allow them to just come into our communities and terrorize us because they’re the real terrorists causing harm.”

Myra Vasquez, a Boyle Heights resident and co-owner of Espacio 1839 rushed to White Memorial after hearing reports of ICE.

(

Alejandra Molina

/

Boyle Heights Beat

)

The confrontation peaked around 11:30 p.m. Video shared with Boyle Heights Beat shows agents pushing back protesters who had moved toward them, and the two sides begin shoving. Agents appear to pepper-spray people on the sidewalk. One agent then tackles a man and pins him to the ground, while a second person is pulled from the crowd. Both were detained.

The standoff continued past midnight. Zavala said agents got out of their vehicles and formed a line in front of the parking lot where paramedics enter, blocking an emergency exit. “They literally became White Memorial’s private security detail,” he said. Zavala said he and another person were sprayed with Mace.

Adventist Health White Memorial Hospital in Boyle Heights.

(

Steve Saldivar

/

The LA Local

)

The Dept. of Homeland Security declined to comment about the incident in Boyle Heights, and, in a statement, the agency said they would “not disclose or discuss law enforcement operations.”

The spokesperson instead said that obstructing law enforcement is a federal crime.

“ICE does not target hospitals, schools, or churches,” the statement said, despite the large turnout of protesters who encountered the masked agents at the hospital.

Father Brendan Busse, who pastors nearby Dolores Mission Church in Boyle Heights, rushed to White Memorial after seeing reports from the Boyle Heights Immigrant Rights Network of ICE at the hospital.

Busse, a Jesuit priest, said he witnessed people caring for each other and tending to those suffering from pepper spray. People there advocated for them to find treatment at White Memorial, Busse said. Community members, he said, “were obviously doing their best, not just to communicate their feelings, but to push, to instigate the dispersal of this ICE presence.”

As clergy, Busse said their presence can help combat a narrative of those advocating for immigrants as “somehow dangerous, or violent, or vulgar.” 

“Just to be there is a sign that that’s not the only version of what this looks like,” he said.

Initially, Busse showed up wearing a hoodie, but he decided to change into his green stole he had in his car as things appeared to get tense. “Just try to do what I could to bring a presence of maybe a little moral authority,” he said.

“It’s bad enough that people have to lift up their voices to say something so obvious, that their lives matter, that our communities are sacred, that families belong together,” Busse said. “It’s bad enough that they have to be out at 3 a.m. in the morning to tell anybody that.”

“It’s even worse if they would have to suffer the consequences of retribution and violence that comes from speaking out in that way,” Busse added.

The post Fireworks, whistles, pots and pans: How neighbors came together to push ICE out of Boyle Heights appeared first on LA Local.