The Brief

The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next Tuesday in a case that could change the fate of more than 1 million gig workers in the state — and perhaps the way we hail rides, order takeout or get groceries delivered.

Four years ago, voters approved Proposition 22, a ballot measure sponsored by Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart that allowed the companies to continue to treat their ride-hailing drivers and delivery workers as independent contractors. Prop. 22 was the industry’s response to Assembly Bill 5, a state law that codified a state Supreme Court decision that would have required the companies to classify those workers as employees.

Treating gig workers as independent contractors is central to the business model of the California-based companies, the middlemen that gave rise to the on-demand, app-based gig economy that has permeated our culture. The companies are fighting to hang on to that model, saying it helps them provide gig workers with flexible schedules. Critics say it lets the companies avoid paying employment taxes and shift financial responsibility to their workers and customers, plus governments.

In 2021, a Superior Court judge invalidated Prop. 22, saying it limits the Legislature’s constitutional power to create and enforce a complete workers’ compensation system because it declares gig workers independent contractors ineligible for the benefit. While the state Supreme Court will be considering this narrow issue, because of a clause in the initiative, it’s possible the whole law will be thrown out because of it.

The gig companies appealed the judge’s decision, and a state appeals court ruled 2 to 1 in their favor last year. SEIU California then appealed that decision, and the state’s highest court agreed to hear the case.

Fifty-eight percent of voters passed Prop. 22 after gig companies spent more than $200 million on the campaign. After it became law, app-based platform workers became eligible for some benefits, such as guaranteed weekly earnings of 120% of minimum wage, health care stipends, and occupational-accident and accidental-death insurance.

Although industry-backed polls show many gig workers voted for Prop. 22 and have benefited from some of its provisions, gig workers continue to complain about their pay and working conditions.

In April, drivers protested, as they have many times, at Uber and Lyft headquarters in San Francisco. They said they were there because of low wages, safety concerns and “deactivations” — getting kicked off the apps and losing their ability to work, sometimes suddenly and without knowing why.

“It’s hard for drivers to make ends meet,” said Cesar Palancares, a field organizer for Bay Area-based worker-advocacy groups Gig Workers Rising and Working Partnerships USA, and a leader of the protests. Nowadays, he said “drivers often have to work 12 hours to earn what they used to earn working six or seven hours.”

Palancares said pay is still low because workers’ eligibility for the earnings guarantee is based on the time they agree to take on a gig and the time they spend on that ride or delivery, but not on the time they spend waiting for a gig.

Los Angeles-based Rideshare Drivers United is so concerned about gig-worker pay that it plans to push for pay standards, like those in New York City and Seattle, even if Prop. 22 is overturned.

“We want to build pay regulation on top of labor rights, specifically catering to how we work in this industry,” said Nicole Moore, president of Rideshare Drivers United, which plans to advocate for legislation or ordinances that would establish a rate card with a minimum rate based on miles and minutes driven.

“What we’ve learned from NYC is you can set a rate card, and you can have data from the companies that ensures that pay is high enough so your expenses are being covered,” Moore said.

The gig industry’s current estimates for average worker earnings differ widely from labor groups’ estimates: A DoorDash spokesperson said delivery workers’ average earnings were $36 an hour last year; an Uber spokesperson said its drivers’ average earnings were $33 “per utilized hour” as of the fourth quarter of last year. Industry-wide, Molly Weedn, a spokesperson for Protect App-Based Drivers + Services, said that in 2022, California drivers earned an average of $34.46 per “active hour,” including tips, an increase of 26% compared with pre-Prop. 22 times.

But labor groups and academics have long disputed those figures, including in the legal briefs they submitted ahead of the Supreme Court hearing, because companies do not count the time gig workers wait for an actual ride or delivery. They also say the industry figures don’t factor in workers’ costs for fuel, maintaining their vehicles, health care costs — not all gig workers are eligible for the stipends — and more. A study by National Equity Atlas and others, done in 2021 after Prop. 22 took effect, found that the workers’ average earnings were as little as $6.20 an hour.

Oral arguments’ focus

The SEIU and the four gig-worker plaintiffs will argue that the state constitution grants the Legislature “unlimited power to enforce a complete workers’ compensation system.” The Legislature already spoke when it passed AB 5, they say. So they contend that “the Legislature’s exercise of that power can be withdrawn only by a constitutional amendment.”

The interveners and appellants — the gig companies and the state, which is required to defend the law — will argue that the Legislature’s “plenary,” or absolute, power over workers’ comp is not exclusive. And they will say no subject is beyond the scope of the initiative process.

“The legal issue is actually pretty straightforward,” said Kurt Oneto, a lawyer for the gig companies. Oneto said a constitutional amendment adopted by California voters in 1918 that gave the Legislature power over workers’ comp “unlimited by any provision” in the constitution was “only enacted to prevent courts from invalidating workers’ comp” — not to limit voters’ power over it.

This decision could set a national precedent in the nagging issue of worker classification. So despite the narrow focus of what the Supreme Court is set to consider, a wide array of legal briefs in the case rehash the pros and cons of the gig economy.

Prop. 22 proponents’ arguments

Those urging the court to uphold Prop. 22 stress that the Legislature doesn’t have exclusive reign over workers’ comp. They say the people — through the ballot initiative — have just as much say. They also say the gig economy helps marginalized workers and communities.

• Former state Sens. Robert Timothy Leslie and Stephen James Peace: Based on their experience as lawmakers, they say “the state Legislature is far from powerless when it comes to amending an initiative” and that lawmakers can amend Prop. 22 if they want.
• David A. Carrillo and Stephen M. Duvernay (California constitution scholars): “Excluding workers’ compensation (or any subject) would partly invalidate the electorate’s lawmaking power by creating a new subject matter exemption from the initiative.”
• Crum & Forster, a holding company of various insurance underwriting companies: Occupational accident insurance, which is based on individual use, is cheaper to provide than full workers’ comp, which is charged per employee and based on a formula. The former makes more sense for gig workers because many of them work part time. “Because the risks confronted by app-based drivers are few and easily defined, premiums need not reflect potential exposure to the myriad risks confronted by employees working in offices, factories, warehouses, agriculture, and other occupations.”  
• Independent Drivers Alliance of California: This group of 400 gig workers said the benefits under Prop. 22 are “something that many of them have come to expect and even need.” 
• Citizens in Charge and The Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California: “Large corporations are not the only type of special interest that can forestall the will of the People.” They say the SEIU is a special interest that influenced the Legislature to pass AB 5.
• California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, NAACP California Hawaii State Conference, National Action Network Los Angeles, National Action Network Sacramento Chapter Inc., and National Diversity Coalition: The independent contractor model provides not just marginalized workers with earning opportunities, it also helps “the provision of transportation, food, and delivery services to communities of color that have been historically underserved.” If Prop. 22 is overturned, they say gig companies will reduce the number of gig workers on their platforms and there will be fewer earning opportunities for “communities of color,” which according to a Pew survey are “more likely to have earned money in the gig economy than White counterparts.” 

Prop. 22 opponents’ arguments

Those asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional warn of a slippery slope. They say allowing corporations to carve out their own labor laws could lead to a continued gig-ification of work in other industries, which will affect not just the workers who will largely be without a safety net, but also the government and the rest of society.

• State Sen. Dave Cortese and Assemblymember Liz Ortega: The “minimal insurance benefits” offered by Prop. 22 — occupational accident insurance and accidental death insurance — are not a complete workers’ comp system, and “the wholesale removal of app-based drivers from the system established by the Legislature over the past century runs contrary” to the power the state constitution gives lawmakers to enforce a complete workers’ comp system.
• California Applicants’ Attorneys Association: The group also said the occupational accident insurance offered under Prop. 22 is limited compared to what workers’ comp offers: medical treatment; temporary or permanent payments depending on the injury; and supplemental job retraining benefits. “The likely result is more injured app-based drivers will seek benefits through public systems” like state or federal disability systems.
• City and County of San Francisco, the City of Oakland, the City of San Diego, and the County of Santa Clara: “The wholesale elimination of worker protection laws (including minimum wage protections for all hours worked, overtime, and expense reimbursement laws) can mean the difference between needing to visit a food pantry or not.” The municipalities say they administer such programs, and therefore taxpayers end up subsidizing “what the law asks employers to contribute through wages and benefits.”
• Law professors Sameer Ashar, Veena Dubal, Catherine Fisk, Charlotte Garden, Joseph Grodin, William B. Gould IV, Stephen Lee, Leticia Saucedo, Reuel Schiller, Katherine Stone, and Noah D. Zatz: This group writes that the law lacks a “provision for an administrative body or system to adjudicate claims or disputes. Instead, as is well-known, they are consigned to asserting their claims in the companies’ secret arbitration system.”
• National Employment Law Project, California Labor Federation, Rideshare Drivers United, Gig Workers Rising, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, PowerSwitch Action, Worksafe, Action Center on Race & the Economy, the Economic Policy Institute, Bet Tzedek, and the California Immigrant Policy Center: Gig workers have few legal protections against opaque, “powerful, algorithmically-driven pay systems, and ‘the possibility remains,’ in the words of one scholar, that on-demand companies… (are offering) vulnerable workers lower wages based on their willingness to accept work at lower prices.” They cite a recent Uber earnings call during which its CEO said the company is “offering the right trip at the right price to the right driver.” Along the same lines, the fact that gig workers are from marginalized groups and communities is unsurprising, they say: “It is no accident that Prop. 22 reinforces and legalizes a second-tier workforce (composed) disproportionately of people of color.” They also cite federal data that shows app-based driving is “one of the most dangerous jobs in America” that includes risks of violence, harassment, injuries and even death on the job.
• Teamsters Locals 396, 542 And 848 and Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO: “Already, a growing number of secure jobs across the state are being replaced by app-based drivers — including jobs where Amici Curiae have fought for decades to ensure a living wage and strong benefits.” Those include delivery drivers formerly employed by Albertsons.

The state workers who are planning the first-ever statewide walkout in 44 years this week once were on much better terms with their boss, Gov. Gavin Newsom.

SEIU Local 1000, state government’s largest union, kicked in one of the single biggest checks to Newsom’s 2018 campaign, a $500,000 contribution. It followed up with $1 million more to help Newsom fend off a recall in 2021.

That alliance made sense for the union, especially considering that Newsom’s Republican opponents were much less friendly to labor.

But today the two sides are far apart with Local 1000 preparing its first statewide strike since signing its first collective bargaining agreement in 1982 as it accuses Newsom of bad-faith bargaining. Its members are trolling Newsom online with memes likening him to infamous Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, caricaturing him as a sci-fi villain and mocking his presidential ambitions.

What happened to the labor love fest?

At the bottom line, Newsom was stingier with public employees than voters who think of him as a labor-aligned Democrat might assume. He demanded wage reductions from state workers over three years of his tenure and limited raises to 3% in financially flush times. He also took a hard line in calling employees back to the office four days a week after many grew accustomed to working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The fact the state has refused to bargain in good faith is what got so many members active,” said Anica Walls, president of Local 1000. The union represents about 100,000 workers. “They’re just kind of tired of always feeling the budget is balanced on state employees’ backs.”

That feeling goes back more than 20 years for some California public employees. Like many workers, they accepted furloughs and wage reductions during the Great Recession. That period lasted from 2008 to 2013 under former governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown. But Brown then pressed for more concessions, including an additional paycheck deduction to fund retiree healthcare and higher worker contributions toward pensions.

Union leaders had high hopes Newsom would end the trend of temporary pay cuts and givebacks, as shown by the campaign contributions he gained in 2018.

It didn’t work out that way.

Here’s a look at some of the issues that led the state’s largest public employee union to break with Newsom and put him on the spot with its first statewide strike.

Money, money, money

California state government spending surged during the Newsom administration, climbing from $201.4 billion in the 2018-19 financial year to $321 billion in Newsom’s 2025-26 budget. That’s a 59% increase.

Payroll is up, too, but at a slower rate. Compensation for state workers hit $25.2 billion in 2025, about 32% more than 2019.

To be sure, Newsom gave bonuses to many public employees — especially prison staff — when the state was flush with money just after the pandemic. But he’s been thriftier with wage increases. They topped out 3% in most contracts.

Meanwhile, Newsom at two key moments pressed public employees to accept pay cuts. The first happened in the panic of the early pandemic when the governor braced for a severe recession. Unions agreed to wage cuts of roughly 9% and in exchange workers received days off that they could save and bank for later.

The second wage cut happened in 2025 when the governor sought to close a severe budget deficit. Most unions, including Local 1000, again accepted deals for two years of wage reductions in exchange for days off. They also agreed to defer raises until next year.

One union did not accept those terms, the California Association of Professional Scientists. The scientist union was the first to strike against Newsom, holding a three-day walkout in 2023. It viewed the contract it negotiated in 2024 as critical, and it didn’t want to give up its raises when Newsom asked.

But, just before an agreed-upon raise was supposed to take effect last summer, it learned that the state budget didn’t include money for the wage increase.

The conflict again angered public employees who expected a pay boost. The union appealed to state lawmakers, who funded the raises in a follow-on spending bill.

“We negotiated that collective bargaining agreement in good faith and believe a deal is a deal,” said the union’s vice president, Justin Garcia.

Working from home

California government changed overnight during the pandemic, when Newsom ordered employees to work from home unless the nature of their job required them to report to a prison or state hospital. That was a major cultural adjustment for a bureaucracy known for time cards, rigid schedules and a refusal to pay for workers’ office parking.

The Newsom administration commended workers for making the change and it publicized a dashboard that showed state employees were just as efficient at home as they were in the office.

But as time passed Newsom said he grew concerned that remote work stifled the in-person collaboration that he argued was important for a successful organization. He called employees back to the office two days a week in 2024, and four days a week beginning last summer.

Many state workers want more flexibility. They point to a 2025 state audit that found the state could save $225 million a year by allowing more remote work.

Retirement plans diverge

State workers hired before 2013 have a better retirement deal than public employees who joined since then. That issue is not front-and-center in the Local 1000 strike, but it’s bubbling up as newer workers learn about their colleagues’ benefits.

Former Gov. Brown championed the law that trimmed pension benefits. It came out of the Great Recession, which caused California’s major pension funds to hemorrhage billions of dollars and highlighted a generous pension enhancement that former Gov. Gray Davis had signed into law a dozen years earlier.

Now, public employees work longer and pay more of their own income toward their pensions. Newsom last month vetoed a bill that would have sweetened retirement formulas for police and firefighters, a proposal that likely will return to Newsom’s successor in the near future.

“What people thought before was a cush state job because we had good retirement, the ability to retire with a pension, that does not look the same to people who came after 2013,” said Walls, the Local 1000 president.

Where else can they go?

Local 1000 and other state government unions might be frustrated with Newsom, but they tend to get a better hearing from Democrats than Republicans. Schwarzenegger, after all, championed four failed ballot measures that would have stripped them of their power and influence.

“They (unions) have to make converts in the church in which they worship,” said Don Perata, a union-aligned Democrat and former Senate president pro tem who battled with Schwarzenegger.

He praised Local 1000 members for carrying state government through the pandemic and for taking on difficult jobs to serve Californians. He recognized governors and lawmakers have to pass balanced budgets, and said that means they should be more careful in running up the cost of programs that might eat away at funding that could be used to pay public employees better.

“It’s past time to show there’s recognition and not just by blowing smoke at them,” Perata said.

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

This story first appeared on Long Beach Post.

Two upcoming events at Long Beach City College will give Long Beach residents the chance to stockpile sandbags in advance of what is expected to be a particularly strong El Niño season.

On Saturday, Oct. 24, residents can pick up sandbags for free at the LBCC Trades, Technology and Community Learning Campus (1305 E Pacific Coast Highway). A second distribution will be held on Saturday, Nov. 7, in Lot M of the Liberal Arts College (4901 E. Carson St.). Each event runs from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m., and community members will be able to drive up to the distribution sites, where staff will help them fill their cars with up to 10 sandbags. IDs will not be required to receive sand and sandbags.

At a recent press conference amid the waves fueled by Tropical Storm Rachel, Mayor Rex Richardson emphasized that residents all across Long Beach will likely feel the effects of storms and flooding this El Niño season.

“Do not be caught off guard,” he said. “Prepare right now.”

The Peninsula has already endured catastrophic damage — a dozen families lost their homes in the punishing waves of the most recent storm. Yet even if residents can’t see the ocean from their windows, experts predict the greater Long Beach area will see bursts of drenching rain carried by atmospheric rivers, large bands of water vapor. In turn, those rainstorms raise the risk of flash flooding, landslides and high tides.

Some of these effects will not be limited to the coast. Low-lying areas throughout Long Beach are especially susceptible to flooding, according to a city press release.

Richardson urged city residents to pick up sandbags before they need them — and to keep them throughout the rainy season, which typically lasts from December through March.

In addition to the upcoming distribution events, residents can also pick up empty sandbags at all neighborhood fire stations. (Station locations are available here.) Sand is available at stations 7, 12, 13 and 14, and residents are encouraged to bring shovels to fill sandbags themselves.

City officials encouraged community members to stay informed during the rainy season by signing up for Alert Long Beach and checking the city’s landing page for emergency updates. City Manager Tom Modica urged residents to take steps to fortify their properties, gather emergency supplies and develop plans for emergency weather.

Find additional resources on how to prepare for and navigate El Niño here.

While those of us closer to LAX wait around for the People Mover to finally make its much-delayed debut (oh, how I remember fondly taking a video of its virgin run around the terminals when I got off a plane a few months ago … ), those in the Valley and parts north have had the last laugh as the new Burbank terminal makes the area’s best airport even better. Sigh.

But who needs to go anywhere? We’ve got plenty going on right here. And remember to get your ballot in and use our voter guides as your one-stop-ballot-info stop. Election Day is Nov. 3!

Music

In music around the region this week, highlights from Licorice Pizza's recommendations include:

Chief Keef will be at the Wiltern on Oct. 27

(

Erika Goldring

/

Getty Images

)

Wednesday

• G-Eazy with Logic and Juicy J at the YouTube Theater
• Chappell Roan’s two-night charity event “Super Graphic Spectacular” at the Shrine Auditorium, benefiting her Midwest Princess Project

Thursday

• Doja Cat and Latto paint the town red at the Forum
• Talib Kweli and Friends are at the Blue Note

Friday

• Andrew Bird with the LA Philharmonic at Disney Hall
• Foster The People with Goth Babe at the Greek
• Channel Tres at the Shrine

Saturday 

• Animal Collective at the Fonda
• Pershing Square’s free I Love Funk Festival with Kool & the Gang, Zapp, Evelyn, Rose Royce and the Dazz Band
• Jim Henson’s Labyrinth: In Concert at the United Theater, featuring a live band performing the full Bowie soundtrack

Sunday

• Xavier Wulf at the Hollywood Palladium
• Jodeci play the YouTube Theater

Monday 

• The Well and Pink Fuzz at Zebulon
• Great Lake Swimmers at Lodge Room

Tuesday

• Chief Keef at the Wiltern
• Josh Johnson ANIMATIVE with Anna Butterss and Ben Lumsdaine at Zebulon

Events

Movies Under the Microscope: Real Genius

Thursday, Oct. 22, 6 p.m.
Natural History Museum 
900 Exposition Blvd., Expo Park 
COST: $25; MORE INFO  

(

Courtesy TriStar Pictures

)

The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County’s Movies Under the Microscope series is back with an ‘80s sci-fi flair, followed by a discussion about how movie science and real science overlap. This week, Val Kilmer (RIP) leads a pack of teen scientists building a laser for the government in the 1985 classic Real Genius. The screening is followed by a panel featuring Dr. David Saltzberg, professor of physics and astronomy at UCLA and science consultant on The Big Bang Theory and Oppenheimer; Cody Ziglar, comic and writer for Futurama and Rick and Morty; Jason Patrick Galit, lead consultant for InterMyth and pop culture educator; and Beth Werling, the senior collections manager of history (Material Culture) at NHM. NHM’s Joel Quizon will moderate the panel.

Treasures and Trivia Thrifting Event

Friday to Sunday, Oct. 23-25
465 N. Halstead St., Pasadena
COST: $40; MORE INFO

Benefiting the Children’s Hospital of LA, Treasures and Trivia is an upscale thrifting event where you can find high-end clothing, furniture, art, housewares, holiday décor and more. Find your next prized possession among rows and rows of unique vintage items.

Side B: the sounds

Through Saturday, Oct. 24
David Zwirner Gallery
606 N. Western Ave., Melrose Hill
COST: FREE; MORE INFO 

(

Courtesy David Zwirner Gallery

)

Did you know there’s a jazz listening room at David Zwirner through this weekend? "Side B: the sounds" is part of the current exhibition at the airy gallery space in Melrose Hill, Roy DeCarava: the sound i saw. There are a few events this weekend at the space, including a screening of the 1984 documentary Conversations with Roy DeCarava (Oct. 22), a reading by Harmony Holiday (Oct. 23) and a live jazz performance organized with the Sam First jazz club (Oct. 24). You can follow the full schedule of events here.

Grand Ave. Arts: All Access

Saturday, Oct. 24, 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Downtown L.A. 
COST: FREE; MORE INFO

(

Courtesy Grand Ave. Arts

)

Grand Ave. is the place to be on Saturday, when 14 leading arts and cultural institutions open their doors for the tenth anniversary of Grand Ave Arts: All Access. From the Ahmanson to Colburn, REDCAT to MOCA, DATALAND and more, all of the institutions along Grand Ave. are planning performances and exhibitions, including a special performance of ¡SÍ SE PUEDE! from Center Theatre Group, an instrument petting zoo at Colburn and Gloria Molina Grand Park’s Downtown Día de los Muertos celebration. Plus, it’s all free!

Public Spirits: Festival of Performance Art

Friday, Oct. 23, 9:30 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Various locations 
Chinatown
COST: FREE; MORE INFO

The Performance Art Museum is hosting an all-day festival of interpretive art, with performances by Jade Guanaro Kuriki-Olivo (Puppies Puppies), Pau S. Pescador, Da Ron Vinson and Ryat Yezbick. Each artist approaches performance “as a form of public speech and a means of intervening in civic life in a spirit of resistance and critical response to the political climate.”

City of San Fernando Día de los Muertos Festival

Saturday, Oct. 24, 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. 
San Fernando Recreation Park
208 Park Ave., San Fernando
COST: FREE; MORE INFO

(

Courtesy the City of San Fernando

)

Bring the whole family to experience the rich tradition of Día de los Muertos! This lively event honors the memories of loved ones, and the city of San Fernando asks you to join in the sacred tradition by building your own altar.

L.A. Times Food Bowl 

Friday and Saturday, Oct. 23-24
Barkar Hangar
3021 Airport Ave., Santa Monica
COST: FROM $170; MORE INFO

Try bites from the hottest restaurants in L.A. at the annual L.A. Times Food Bowl, this year taking place at the massive Barkar Hangar in Santa Monica. Roy Choi, Chainsaw, Baroo, Rustic Canyon and many, many more will have tastes and treats — all included in your ticket.

It's Funny NOW: Five Moth Champions Live

Saturday, October 24, 8 p.m.
Hermosa Beach Playhouse
710 Pier Ave., Hermosa Beach
COST: FROM $21.24; MORE INFO 

(

Courtesy RimoVision

)

Five Moth StorySlam and Grand Slam champs join forces at the Hermosa Beach Playhouse for It’s Funny NOW. True stories, live on stage and only the best — you really can’t go wrong, just don’t forget to bring the tissues.

Venice Yoga Festival and block party

Saturday, Oct. 24, 12 p.m. to sunset
Venice Basketball Courts
1708-1978 Ocean Front Walk, Venice 
COST: FREE; MORE INFO 

Get your vinyasa on, or just meditate by the ocean waves with fellow yogis and community members at the free Venice Yoga Festival at Muscle Beach. In addition to free classes with local practitioners, the day also features live music and kirtan, kids’ activities, workshops and talks.

Blind Runner

Through Sunday, Nov. 8 
South Coast Repertory
655 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa
COST: FROM $41; MORE INFO

”Blind Runner” will be at South Coast Rep for a few weeks.

(

Matt Stasi

/

South Coast Repertory

)

Mehr Theatre Group’s Blind Runner tells the story of three Iranians in a race against themselves — and time — using projection, immersive imagery and a story performed entirely in Persian with English supertitles. The unique show premiered at New York’s St. Ann's Warehouse in January 2025 as part of the Under the Radar Festival. With text and direction by award-winning Iranian theatre artist Amir Reza Koohestani, Blind Runner runs through Nov. 8 at South Coast Rep. Shows on Oct. 25 and 28 feature artist talkbacks.

The U.S. Department of Justice has attempted to use a number of tactics in recent weeks to remove California voters they say are likely noncitizens from state voter rolls — despite the voting process having already begun.

Election security experts told LAist, however, that the federal government’s case is unlikely to succeed, and that voters should proceed filling out their ballots as normal.

“I don't think most people in the L.A. area or beyond will actually encounter any of the disruption that the administration is trying to project,” Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt said.

The backstory

Last week, Department of Justice election officials sent a list of 20,000 California voters it says it has “high confidence” are not citizens. (L.A. County election officials said they received records on a thumb drive, which they could not open for security reasons.) Two days later, the Trump administration sued California for not complying with its request to use the list to remove any noncitizens from local voter rolls.

California on Tuesday filed an extensive response to the DOJ lawsuit, saying it “borders on the absurd.”

Separately this week, the DOJ announced it had filed charges against 28 people, accusing them of registering to vote as noncitizens.

What is the DOJ claiming?

DOJ representatives said Monday they are attempting to keep U.S. citizens’ votes from being canceled out by noncitizens.

“We have an election coming up next month,” Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney, said. “Our biggest priority is to safeguard the integrity of the election.”

Essayli suggested he may prosecute election officials who knowingly process ballots “once we’ve informed them who the non-citizens are” and indicated the DOJ is working on “many more cases.”

Regarding the list sent to state and local officials, DOJ officials also said they have “high confidence” — not complete certainty — that the people on the federal government’s list are noncitizens.

“There may be some names on there who it turns out ultimately are citizens,” Trent McCotter, acting deputy attorney general, said Monday. “We're not perfect, and that's why we've asked California to cooperate with us.”

In a court declaration filed today, L.A. County Assistant Registrar Monica Flores said the DOJ’s list is “unreliable.” Analyzing a sample of 200 records, she said a majority are not active voters, and nearly 40% of the records indicate the individual was born in the U.S.

The L.A. County registrar of voters said officials here did not comply with the request to use the federal list and began coordinating with state officials — a point DOJ officials stressed on Monday, with McCotter saying this is “an emergency of their own [California’s] creation.”

Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor who runs the school’s Safeguarding Democracy Project, disagreed.

“The federal government didn't produce its list of voters or its methodology to California until just a few days ago, so this is not an emergency of California's own making,” Hasen said. “It is not the federal government's job to decide who is on voting rolls. That is a job that is given to states.”

A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment for this article beyond pointing to Essayli’s X social media feed.

What role will local election officials play?

In large part, Hasen and Levitt said officials will play the same role that they always have, even though more eyes will be on them. County election officials send out ballots, process and verify signatures, and reach out to voters if there are any outstanding issues. The registrar then has 13 days to report on ballots to the state, including provisional ballots and same-day registration ballots, and 30 days to finish counting them.

That said, Hasen said Essayli’s threat of possible criminal prosecution against election officials is “really dangerous” — even though he said these cases are also unlikely to succeed.

“We've got a threat of criminal prosecution against election administrators for not being aggressive enough in policing voting rolls to the Trump administration's liking,” Hasen said. “Even if they were negligent in how they policed their voting rolls, there's no criminal liability here.”

What should voters do?

Levitt, who previously worked on voting rights at the Justice Department, said he doesn’t think Trump’s DOJ is serious about the legal merits of their lawsuit against California.

“I can completely understand that people may be freaked out,” he said. “Part of what DOJ is doing is an attempt to freak people out.”

For their part, local officials have reassured voters that they should proceed to cast their ballots. In a statement, L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn called the DOJ’s actions “voter intimidation and a blatant attempt to undermine trust in our midterm elections.”

Levitt recommended voting as early as possible to give voters time to check their registration and resolve any issues. If you have concerns, he recommended visiting an early voting center in person.

Hasen encouraged voters to double-check the status of their ballots to ensure they’ve been processed and counted.

“We have very good ballot tracking,” Hasen said. “California is not going to simply start throwing out ballots from people who are on an unvetted federal list of supposed noncitizen voters.”

What’s the future of this lawsuit?

Hasen and Levitt said the legal problems with the federal government’s arguments can be traced back to federal law and the Constitution.

“The Constitution gives states the power to run elections subject to Congress passing laws that can override that,” Hasen said. “There's no congressional override that would give the federal government the authority to do this.”

That makes the DOJ’s case unlikely to succeed, the professors agreed.

“It's possible that a court might not even really deal with it at all,” Levitt said.

What about the people accused of voting fraud?

The charges announced this week against 28 people accused of registering or voting as noncitizens, however, may be more successful, depending on the evidence presented in each case.

“Isolated cases of alleged voter fraud occur in red and blue states alike, and they should be prosecuted wherever they occur,” a spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement.

But Bonta noted that the 28 people charged represent 0.0001% of California’s registered voters. The percentage is about the same in L.A. County: The 12 L.A. County residents charged this week make up roughly 0.0002% of people on the voter rolls.