Last Member Drive of 2025!

Your year-end tax-deductible gift powers our local newsroom. Help raise $1 million in essential funding for LAist by December 31.
$700,442 of $1,000,000 goal
A row of graphics payment types: Visa, MasterCard, Apple Pay and PayPal, and  below a lock with Secure Payment text to the right
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • How to make sure your write-in vote counts
    A close-up of an official ballot envelope. On the left side is a small hole.
    An official ballot envelope for the 2024 primary election in Los Angeles.

    Topline:

    If you’re filling out your ballot for the Nov. 5 election, you may notice that certain local races allow you to vote for a write-in candidate. That’s where you can vote for someone whose name isn’t on the ballot, in case you’re not impressed with the other choices available.

    How does it work? In California, candidates have to file paperwork and qualify to be official write-in candidates. So even though you’re technically free to write anybody’s name on that write-in candidate line, your write-in vote would only count if it’s for someone who has officially qualified.

    So who qualified this year? One person qualified as a write-in for U.S. president and a handful of others qualified in L.A. County for races in El Segundo, Malibu and Sierra Madre. There are no qualified write-in candidates for Orange County races this year. Read the full story to see the list of names.

    If you’re filling out your ballot for the Nov. 5 election, you may notice that certain races allow you to vote for a write-in candidate. That’s where you can vote for someone whose name isn’t on the ballot, in case you’re not impressed with the other choices available.

    But wait — there’s a catch! In California, candidates have to file paperwork and qualify to be official write-in candidates. So even though you’re technically free to write anybody’s name on that write-in candidate line, your write-in vote will only count if it’s for someone who has officially qualified.

    Write-in candidates aren’t allowed in the Nov. 5 election for offices like U.S. Representative, U.S. Senator, State Assembly or State Senate. Under California rules, write-in candidates for those races are only allowed in the primary election. After that, the top two vote-getters advance to the general, and the window for write-in candidates gets closed.

    That said, there are still write-in candidates for other races — one person qualified as a write-in for U.S. president and a handful of others qualified for races in El Segundo, Malibu and Sierra Madre. There are no qualified write-in candidates for local races in Orange County this year.

    The list of eligible write-in candidates

    Here’s the full list of eligible write-in candidates for L.A. County voters:

    U.S. President

    Peter Sonski (president)
    Lauren Onak (vice president)
    Campaign website

    El Segundo City Clerk

    Eric Kenas
    Campaign website (Facebook)

    Alissa Kovall
    (no campaign information found)

    Susan Truax
    Campaign statement (Facebook)

    Malibu City Council

    Andy Lyon
    Campaign announcement (Malibu City Council meeting)

    Sierra Madre City Treasurer

    Sue Spears
    (no campaign information found)

    Other voting tips

    If you’re voting by mail, make sure that your ballot is postmarked by Nov. 5. California law allows seven days for it to arrive and be counted.

    If you still need to register to vote, you can do that at any vote center in the county you live in.

    • You can look up L.A. County vote centers here.
    • You can find Orange County vote centers here.

    If you have any other questions about voting, drop us a question in the box below. An LAist journalist will read and respond to every question we receive. You can also find more voter resources, including dozens of voter guides, at our Voter Game Plan page.

    What questions do you have about this election?
    You ask, and we'll answer: Whether it's about how to interpret the results or track your ballot, we're here to help you understand the 2024 general election on Nov. 5.

  • New state law to require paper bags in 2026
    A white plastic bag that has the green Sprouts logo on it with the words "reuse" on it sits on top of a silver trash can opening. There is soiled trash in the bag.
    A Sprouts Farmers Market reusable plastic grocery shopping bag sits in a trash can in El Segundo.

    Topline:

    Starting New Year's Day, when you go shopping in California, you may notice a change. In 2026, plastic bags are out and paper bags are in.

    What’s changing? A new law is taking effect on Jan. 1 that requires most grocery and convenience stores to provide recycled paper bags instead of the thick plastic bags. The move comes after the state banned single-use plastic bags about a decade ago, but a loophole meant thicker, reusable bags were allowed to remain

    Why now? It’s happening because California’s original ban hasn’t worked out too well. The thicker bags aren’t easy to recycle. Instead of reducing plastic bag waste in landfills, it's gone up considerably.

    Read on…. to learn how the new law works and what went sideways with the first ban.

    No Katy Perry, in 2026, we won’t be feeling like a plastic bag drifting through the wind.

    That’s because California is finally closing a major loophole in its plastic bag ban. Starting on Jan. 1, stores will be required to swap out those thick, reusable plastic bags with recycled paper bags.

    How the law works

    Under Senate Bill 1053, the ban applies to most grocery, drug and convenience stores — basically any store that sells food.

    The paper bags, which still come with a 10 cent fee, will get doled out regardless of how you’re shopping. That means you can get them for things like curbside and home delivery, as well as self-checkout.

    The paper bags have to be accepted in curbside recycling programs, and show the bag’s manufacturer, country of origin and the percentage of recycled materials.

    That last part matters because starting in 2028, those bags must have a minimum of 50% recycled materials.

    The law has a couple of exceptions, according to CalRecycle. You could still get plastic for prescriptions or, a separate bag without handles "to protect a purchased item from damaging or contaminating other purchased items." (Think produce or meat bags you get prior to checking out.) Garment bags are also allowed.

    Didn’t we already ban plastic bags?

    If this is giving you déjà vu, there's a reason.

    About a decade ago, the state legislature passed a ban on single-use carryout bags, which voters upheld two years later with Proposition 67.

    The goal was to reduce plastic waste — but it didn’t work out as planned. While lightweight bags were prohibited, a loophole in the law allowed thicker bags that could be reused.

    However, those bags have posed a problem. The thicker ones are made of high-density polyethylene, or HDPE, which the EPA says can’t be placed in your curbside blue bin. So in the end, these bags largely aren’t recycled and wind up in the trash.

    The net result: Not at all what was intended. In fact, CalRecycle’s latest data shows there’s now 47% more plastic bags in landfills since the original ban passed. Legislators hope that will go down with the new ban.

  • Sponsored message
  • FIFA president says fan interest justifies prices

    Topline:

    FIFA President Gianni Infantino on Monday justified the controversially high ticket prices for the 2026 World Cup by announcing that the tournament had already received over 150 million ticket requests during the latest sales window, an unprecedented level of demand.

    How the proceeds will be used: Infantino also said that most of the proceeds from the tournament — which will be held across the U.S., Canada and Mexico next year — will be steered to develop soccer worldwide, stating flatly that "without FIFA, there would be no football in 150 countries in the world." His comments at the World Sports Summit in Dubai were his first public remarks since the most recent application period for tickets opened up in early December — leading to outrage after fans saw the prices being charged.
    The cost for tickets: Prices range from $140 for a handful of initial round games to as much as $2,735 for the U.S. opening match against Paraguay that will be held in Los Angeles next year. Prices for knockout rounds surge even more. FIFA subsequently announced a special tier of $60 tickets for each of the 104 games of the tournament for followers of participating countries' teams, though that will represent only a small fraction of available tickets.

    Read on ... for more about how to apply to buy tickets.

    FIFA President Gianni Infantino on Monday justified the controversially high ticket prices for the 2026 World Cup by announcing that the tournament had already received over 150 million ticket requests during the latest sales window, an unprecedented level of demand.

    Infantino also said that most of the proceeds from the tournament — which will be held across the U.S., Canada and Mexico next year — will be steered to develop soccer worldwide, stating flatly that "without FIFA, there would be no football in 150 countries in the world. "

    His comments at the World Sports Summit in Dubai were his first public remarks since the most recent application period for tickets opened up in early December — leading to outrage after fans saw the prices being charged.

    Those prices range from $140 for a handful of initial round games to as much as $2,735 for the U.S. opening match against Paraguay that will be held in Los Angeles next year.

    Prices for knockout rounds surge even more, with FIFA charging $4,185 for the cheapest ticket for the final that will be held in July in New Jersey — and $8,680 for the most expensive seats.

    FIFA subsequently announced a special tier of $60 tickets for each of the 104 games of the tournament for followers of participating countries' teams, though that will represent only a small fraction of available tickets.

    "In the last few days, you have probably seen there is a lot of debate about ticketing and ticket prices," Infantino said before announcing the tournament had received 150 million ticket requests since the application period for tickets opened on Dec. 11, a number he described as "absolutely crazy."

    "This shows how powerful the World Cup is," he said.

    FIFA has defended its December prices — which are much higher than in previous World Cups and in many cases higher than ticket prices in sales windows earlier this year — by saying that the vast majority of the proceeds from the tournament will support the development of soccer worldwide.

    "There is football because [of] and thanks to these revenues we generate with and from the World Cup, which we reinvest, of course, all over the world," Infantino said in Dubai on Monday.

    The ongoing sales window will remain open until Jan. 13. People can apply to buy tickets for each of the 104 games. The date when they end up submitting their applications will have no bearing on their chances of succeeding, according to FIFA.

    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • Big Tech asserts its influence in California
    A room with cabinets of computers with cables. A person, out of focus in the back, is attending to a cabinet.
    An employee works in a Broadcom data center in San Jose.

    Topline:

    A new law orders regulators to study the cost impacts of fast-growing, energy-hungry AI data centers. Lawmakers are expected to revisit tougher rules as utilities, advocates and tech groups battle over who pays for the grid upgrades.

    The backstory: Tools that power artificial intelligence devour energy. But attempts to shield regular Californians from footing the bill in 2025 ended with a law requiring regulators to write a report about the issue by 2027.

    Why it matters: The law mandating the report is the lone survivor of last year’s push to rein in the data-center industry. Its deadline means the findings won’t likely be ready in time for lawmakers to use in 2026. The measure began as a plan to give data centers their own electricity rate, shielding households and small businesses from higher bills.

    Read on ... for how we got here and the prospects for future legislation.

    This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

    Tools that power artificial intelligence devour energy. But attempts to shield regular Californians from footing the bill in 2025 ended with a law requiring regulators to write a report about the issue by 2027.

    If that sounds pretty watered down, it is. Efforts to regulate the energy usage of data centers — the beating heart of AI — ran headlong into Big Tech, business groups and the governor.

    That’s not surprising given that California is increasingly dependent on big tech for state revenue: A handful of companies pay upwards of $5 billion just on income tax withholding.

    The law mandating the report is the lone survivor of last year’s push to rein in the data-center industry. Its deadline means the findings won’t likely be ready in time for lawmakers to use in 2026. The measure began as a plan to give data centers their own electricity rate, shielding households and small businesses from higher bills.

    It amounts to a “toothless” measure, directing the utility regulator to study an issue it already has the authority to investigate, said Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney with the Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocate.

    Data centers’ enormous electricity demand has pushed them to the center of California’s energy debate, and that’s why lawmakers and consumer advocates say new regulations matter.

    For instance, the sheer amount of energy requested by data centers in California is prompting questions about costly grid upgrades even as speculative projects and fast-shifting AI loads make long-term planning uncertain. Developers have requested 18.7 gigawatts of service capacity for data centers, more than enough to serve every household in the state, according to the California Energy Commission.

    But the report could help shape future debates as lawmakers revisit tougher rules and the CPUC considers new policies on what data centers pay for power — a discussion gaining urgency as scrutiny of their rising electricity costs grows, he said.

    “It could be that the report helps the Legislature to understand the magnitude of the problem and potential solutions,” Freedman said. “It could also inform the CPUC’s own review of the reasonableness of rates for data center customers, which they are likely to investigate.”

    State Sen. Steve Padilla, a Democrat from Chula Vista, says that the final version of his law “was not the one we would have preferred,” agreeing that it may seem “obvious” the CPUC can study data center cost impacts. The measure could help frame future debates and at least “says unequivocally that the CPUC has the authority to study these impacts” as demand from data centers accelerates, Padilla added.

    Data centers "consume huge amounts of energy, huge amounts of resources, and at least in the near future, we're not going to see that change,” he said.

    Earlier drafts of Padilla’s measure went further, requiring data centers to install large batteries to support the grid during peak demand and pushing utilities to supply them with 100% carbon-free electricity by 2030 — years ahead of the state’s own mandate. Those provisions were ultimately stripped out.

    How California’s first push to regulate data centers slipped away

    California’s bid to bring more oversight to data centers unraveled earlier this year under industry pressure, ending with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s veto of a bill requiring operators to report their water use. Concerns over the bills reflected fears that data-center developers could shift projects to other states and take valuable jobs with them.

    A September Stanford report on powering California data centers said the state risks losing property-tax revenue, union construction jobs and “valuable AI talent” if data-center construction moves out of state.

    The idea that increased regulation could lead to businesses or dollars in some form leaving California is an argument that has been brought up across industries for decades. It often does not hold up to more careful or long-term scrutiny.

    In the face of this opposition, two key proposals stalled in the Legislature’s procedural churn. Early in the session, Padilla put a separate clean-power incentives proposal for data centers on hold until 2026. Later in the year, an Assembly bill requiring data centers to disclose their electricity use was placed in the Senate’s suspense file — where appropriations committees often quietly halt measures.

    Newsom, who has often spoken of California’s AI dominance, echoed the industry’s competitiveness worries in his veto message of the water-use reporting requirement. The governor said he was reluctant to impose requirements on data centers, “without understanding the full impact on businesses and the consumers of their technology.”

    Despite last year’s defeats, some lawmakers say they will attempt to tackle the issue again.

    Padilla plans to try again with a bill that would add new rules on who pays for data centers’ long-term grid costs in California, while Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan — a Democrat from San Ramon — will revisit her electricity-disclosure bill.

    Big Tech warns of job losses but one advocate sees an opening

    After blocking most measures — and watering down the lone energy-costs bill — Big Tech groups say they’ll revive arguments that new efforts to regulate data centers could cost California jobs.

    At a CalMatters event in November, Silicon Valley Leadership Group CEO Ahmad Thomas argued that California must compete to attract investments like the $40 billion data-center project Texas secured with  Google. Any policy making deals like that tougher would provoke conflict, he added.

    “When we get to the details of what our regulatory regime looks like versus other states, or how we can make California more competitive ... that's where sometimes we struggle to find that happy medium,” he said.

    Despite having more regulations than some states, California continues to toggle between the 4th and 5th largest economy in the world and has for some time, suggesting that the Golden State is very competitive.

    Dan Diorio, vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, another industry lobbying group, said new requirements on data centers should apply to all other large electricity users.

    “To single out one industry is not something that we think would set a helpful precedent, ” Diorio said. “We've been very consistent with that throughout the country.”

    Critics say job loss fears are overblown, noting California built its AI sector without the massive hyperscale facilities that typically gravitate to states with ample, cheaper land and streamlined permitting.

    Data-center locations — driven by energy prices, land and local rules — have little to do with where AI researchers live, said Shaolei Ren, an AI researcher at UC Riverside.

    “These two things are sort of separate, they’re decoupled,” he said.

    Freedman, of TURN, said lawmakers may have a bargaining chip: If developers cared about cheaper power, they wouldn’t be proposing facilities in a state with high electric rates. That means speed and certainty may be the priority, giving lawmakers the space to potentially offer quicker approvals in exchange for developers covering more grid costs.

    “There's so much money in this business that the energy bills — even though large — are kind of like rounding errors for these guys,” Freedman said. “If that's true, then maybe they shouldn't care about having to pay a little bit more to ensure that costs aren't being shifted to other customers.”

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

  • Steps to mitigate disturbing chatbot interactions

    Topline:

    Psychologists and online safety advocates say parents are right to be worried. Extended chatbot interactions may affect kids' social development and mental health, they say. And the technology is changing so fast that few safeguards are in place.

    Why it matters: Generative AI chatbots are a growing part of life for American teens. A survey by the Pew Research Center found that 64% of adolescents are using chatbots, with 3 in 10 saying they use them daily.

    Be aware of the risks: A new report from the online safety company, Aura, shows that 42% of adolescents using AI chatbots use them for companionship. Aura gathered data from the daily device use of 3,000 teens as well as surveys of families.

    Read on... for more tips from experts.

    It wasn't until a couple of years ago that Keri Rodrigues began to worry about how her kids might be using chatbots. She learned her youngest son was interacting with the chatbot in his Bible app — he was asking it some deep moral questions, about sin for instance.

    That's the kind of conversation that she had hoped her son would have with her and not a computer. "Not everything in life is black and white," she says. "There are grays. And it's my job as his mom to help him navigate that and walk through it, right?"

    Rodrigues has also been hearing from parents across the country who are concerned about AI chatbots' influence on their children. She is the president of the National Parents Union, which advocates for children and families. Many parents, she says, are watching chatbots claim to be their kids' best friends, encouraging children to tell them everything.

    Psychologists and online safety advocates say parents are right to be worried. Extended chatbot interactions may affect kids' social development and mental health, they say. And the technology is changing so fast that few safeguards are in place.

    The impacts can be serious. According to their parents' testimonies at a recent Senate hearing, two teens died by suicide after prolonged interactions with chatbots that encouraged their suicide plans.

    If you or someone you know may be considering suicide or be in crisis, call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.

    But generative AI chatbots are a growing part of life for American teens. A survey by the Pew Research Center found that 64% of adolescents are using chatbots, with 3 in 10 saying they use them daily.

    "It's a very new technology," says Dr. Jason Nagata, a pediatrician and researcher of adolescent digital media use at the University of California San Francisco. "It's ever-changing and there's not really best practices for youth yet. So, I think there are more opportunities now for risks because we're still kind of guinea pigs in the whole process."


    And teenagers are particularly vulnerable to the risks of chatbots, he adds, because adolescence is a time of rapid brain development, which is shaped by experiences. "It is a period when teens are more vulnerable to lots of different exposures, whether it's peers or computers."

    But parents can minimize those risks, say pediatricians and psychologists. Here are some ways to help teens navigate the technology safely.

    1. Be aware of the risks

    A new report from the online safety company, Aura, shows that 42% of adolescents using AI chatbots use them for companionship. Aura gathered data from the daily device use of 3,000 teens as well as surveys of families.

    That includes some disturbing conversations involving violence and sex, says psychologist Scott Kollins, chief medical officer at Aura, who leads the company's research on teen interactions with generative AI.

    "It is role play that is [an] interaction about harming somebody else, physically hurting them, torturing them," he says.

    He says it's normal for kids to be curious about sex, but learning about sexual interactions from a chatbot instead of a trusted adult is problematic.

    And chatbots are designed to agree with users, says pediatrician Nagata. So if your child starts a query about sex or violence, "the default of the AI is to engage with it and to reinforce it."

    He says spending a lot of time with chatbots — having extended conversations — also prevents teenagers from learning important social skills, like empathy, reading body language and negotiating differences.

    "When you're only or exclusively interacting with computers who are agreeing with you, then you don't get to develop those skills," he says.

    And there are mental health risks. According to a recent study by researchers at the nonprofit research organization RAND, Harvard and Brown universities, 1 in 8 adolescents and young adults use chatbots for mental health advice.

    But there have been numerous reports of individuals experiencing delusions, or what's being referred to as AI psychosis, after prolonged interactions with chatbots. This, as well as the concern over risks of suicide, has led psychologists to warn that AI chatbots pose serious risks to the mental health and safety of teens as well as vulnerable adults.

    "We see that when people interact with [chatbots] over long periods of time, that things start to degrade, that the chatbots do things that they're not intended to do," says psychologist Ursula Whiteside, CEO of a mental health nonprofit called Now Matters Now. For example, she says, chatbots "give advice about lethal means, things that it's not supposed to do but does happen over time with repeated queries."

    2. Stay engaged with kids' online lives 

    Keep an open dialogue going with your child, says Nagata.

    "Parents don't need to be AI experts," he says. "They just need to be curious about their children's lives and ask them about what kind of technology they're using and why."

    And have those conversations early and often, says psychologist Kollins of Aura.

    "We need to have frequent and candid but nonjudgmental conversations with our kids about what this content looks like," says Kollins, who's also a father to two teenagers. "And we're going to have to continue to do that."

    He often asks his teens about what platforms they are on. When he hears about new chatbots through his own research at Aura, he also asks his kids if they have heard of those or used them.

    "Don't blame the child for expressing or taking advantage of something that's out there to satisfy their natural curiosity and exploration," he says.

    And make sure to keep the conversations open-ended, says Nagata: "I do think that that allows for your teenager or child to open up about problems that they've encountered."

    3. Develop digital literacy 

    It's also important to talk to kids about the benefits and pitfalls of generative AI. And if parents don't understand all the risks and benefits, parents and kids can research that together, suggests psychologist Jacqueline Nesi at Brown University, who was involved in the American Psychological Association's recent health advisory on AI and adolescent health.

    "A certain amount of digital literacy and literacy does need to happen at home," she says.

    It's important for parents and teens to understand that while chatbots can help with research, they also make errors, says Nagata. And it is important for users to be skeptical and fact-check.

    "Part of this education process for children is to help them to understand that this is not the final say," explains Nagata. "You yourself can process this information and try to assess, what's real or not. And if you're not sure, then try to verify with other people or other sources."

    4. Parental controls only work if kids set up their own accounts

    If a child is using AI chatbots, it may be better for them to set up their own account on the platforms, says Nesi, instead of using chatbots anonymously.

    "Many of the more popular platforms now have parental controls in place," she says. "But in order for those parental controls to be in effect, a child does need to have their own account."

    But be aware, there are dozens of different AI chatbots that kids could be using. "We identified 88 different AI platforms that kids were interacting with," says Kollins.

    This underscores the importance of having an open dialogue with your child to stay aware of what they're using.

    5. Set time limits

    Nagata also advises setting boundaries around when kids use digital technology, especially at nighttime.

    "One potential aspect of generative AI that can also lead to mental health and physical health impacts are [when] kids are chatting all night long and it's really disrupting their sleep," says Nagata. "Because they're very personalized conversations, they're very engaging. Kids are more likely to continue to engage and have more and more use."

    And if a child is veering toward overuse and misuse of generative AI, Nagata recommends that parents set time limits or limit certain kinds of content on chatbots.

    6. Seek help for more vulnerable teens 

    Kids who are already struggling with their mental health or social skills are more likely to be vulnerable to the risks of chatbots, says Nesi.

    "So if they're already lonely, if they're already isolated, then I think there's a bigger risk that maybe a chatbot could then exacerbate those issues," she says.

    And it's also important to keep an eye on potential warning signs of poor mental health, she notes.

    Those warning signs involve sudden and persistent changes in mood, isolation or changes in how engaged they are at school.

    "Parents should be as much as possible trying to pay attention to the whole picture of the child," says Nesi. "How are they doing in school? How are they doing with friends? How are they doing at home if they are starting to withdraw?"

    If a teen is withdrawing from friends and family and restricting their social interactions to just the chatbot, that too is a warning sign, she says. "Are they going to the chatbot instead of a friend or instead of a therapist or instead of responsible adults about serious issues?

    Also look for signs of dependence or addiction to a chatbot, she adds. "Are they having difficulty controlling how much they are using a chatbot? Like, is it starting to feel like it's controlling them? They kind of can't stop," she says.

    And if they see those signs, parents should reach out to a professional for help, says Nesi.

    "Speaking to a child's pediatrician is always a good first step," she says. "But in most cases, getting a mental health professional involved is probably going to make sense."

    7. The government has a role to play

    But, she acknowledges that the job of keeping children and teens safe from this technology shouldn't just fall upon parents.

    "There's a responsibility, you know, from lawmakers, from the companies themselves to make these products safe for teens."

    Lawmakers in Congress recently introduced bipartisan legislation to ban tech companies from offering companion apps for minors and to hold companies accountable for making available to minors companion apps that produce or solicit sexual content.

    If you or someone you know may be considering suicide or be in crisis, call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
    Copyright 2025 NPR