Connect with us

Politics

California and Los Angeles County are getting tougher on crime. Here are the maps that show it

Published

on

California and Los Angeles County are getting tougher on crime. Here are the maps that show it

California and Los Angeles County are getting tougher on crime.

The stiffer penalties on some drug and theft crimes that voters recently approved with Proposition 36 took effect this month. Weeks earlier, in L.A. County, former federal prosecutor Nathan Hochman was sworn in as the new district attorney and kicked off his administration by reversing several policies that his progressive predecessor George Gascón put in place.

The 2024 general election saw California voters reverse course against criminal justice reform policies and candidates. Proposition 36 overhauls key parts of Proposition 47 that passed handily in 2014. A closer look at L.A. neighborhoods reveals where Proposition 36 and Hochman made headway and how opinions shifted compared with10 years ago.

In 2014, Proposition 47 was overwhelmingly approved by 90% of neighborhoods in L.A. County. It turned some nonviolent felonies into misdemeanors. Ten years later, 87% of neighborhoods that supported the ballot initiative voted to overhaul it.

All of the few neighborhoods that voted against reduced crime penalties in 2014 voted for harsher penalties with Proposition 36. Those include Santa Clarita, Glendora and La Mirada.

Advertisement

Longtime California pollster Mark DiCamillo, who directed polls for both Propositions 36 and 47, said both state measures were decided by the same swing groups: voters with “no party preference” and voters who consider their political ideology “middle of the road.”

“Those same swing voter blocks, which showed you there was support for Prop. 47 10 years ago, definitely changed their opinion and are now much more inclined to be supportive of Prop. 36,” DiCamillo said.

Former Rep. Jackie Speier, who had previously supported Proposition 47, said in a public statement that Proposition 36 is a “common-sense” adjustment to the previous law.

Comparing the polls for each ballot initiative reveals differences within age groups and political parties, adds DiCamillo.

Among voters with party preferences, Republicans were mixed on Proposition 47, with Democrats almost 4-to-1 in favor of turning nonviolent felonies into misdemeanors. In 2024, Republicans were 9-to-1 in favor of overhauling Proposition 47. Democrats were more mixed.

“So opinions switched, obviously, but the same age differences were there; the same party differences were there,” DiCamillo said. “You had the same kind of subgroup variations that we saw 10 years ago, but a very different view of the initiative.”

Advertisement

Executive Director Rev. Zachary Hoover of LA Voice, an interfaith community organization that helped pass Proposition 47 and organized against Proposition 36, said the team campaigned in L.A., Long Beach, Inglewood and the San Gabriel Valley.

In L.A. County, both ballot measures passed with 64% of votes, though the 2014 midterm saw a record low turnout for a general election.

LA Voice’s campaign against Proposition 36 reminded people of what Proposition 47 has accomplished, especially in places where people benefited from the initiative. But that was not the main message.

“We focused more on the deceptive nature of how 36 is being sold to us, and what it would really do and what we really need, which is strong investments in mental health and addiction support,” Hoover said.

“When we worked on Prop. 47, that was two years after the ‘three strikes’ [law],” Hoover said. “That was the period when a lot of people were starting to wake up to the ways in which the justice system has been racist and persists in having racialized outcomes to this day. People haven’t backed away from that.”

Voters also haven’t changed their opinion on the importance of treatment. The September Berkeley IGS poll found that nearly half of those surveyed said they support rehabilitation or other alternatives for first-time offenders.

Advertisement

However, imposing harsher penalties for repeat offenders was what drove support for Proposition 36.

“Across the country, regardless of your D.A., crime went up in certain ways during the pandemic in the entire country,” Hoover said. “We were disconnected from each other for a long time. To a certain extent, the world is more complicated now than it was 10 years ago.”

Who would be the next D.A. and how they would handle increased crime rates was a high profile issue in L.A. County this fall. Support for Proposition 36 went hand in hand with support for former federal prosecutor Hochman for district attorney. A large majority (75%) of precincts backed both the increased crime penalties of Proposition 36 and Hochman’s promises of law and order. Hochman beat incumbent Gascón by almost 20 points.

A preelection Berkeley IGS Poll analysis of likely L.A. County voters for Proposition 36 and district attorney found that the largest combination was voters who planned to vote for both Proposition 36 and Hochman (40%). The next largest pairing — those voting against the state measure and for Gascón — represented only 14% of voters.

In analyzing the two voter blocs, DiCamillo found that the biggest demographic differences were the political dimensions. L.A. voters who supported Proposition 36 and Hochman were a mix of those who considered themselves moderate or conservative. By contrast, 82% of those who voted for Gascón and no on Proposition 36 identified themselves as liberals.

An even mix of registered Democrats, Republicans and those who registered as “no party preference” or with a third party supported Proposition 36 and Hochman. Among voters who were against the ballot initiative and for Gascón, 74% were Democrats while the remaining were independents or registered with a minor party.

Advertisement

“Gascón had a base of the Democrats, but it wasn’t enough,” DiCamillo said. “If they were voting no on 36 and they were Democratic, they were very likely to be for Gascón, but that was a relatively narrow segment.” Forty-seven percent of Democrats supported Prop. 36.

Ninety-two percent of the precincts that went for Trump also voted yes on 36 and for Hochman for district attorney.

Gascón did not win any new neighborhoods in the general election. Hochman won all 33 neighborhoods that other candidates won in the March primary.

Advertisement

LA Voice Action, a political affiliate of LA Voice, worked to get Gascón elected in 2020. Hoover, who is also LA Voice Action’s executive director, said the group’s campaign to reelect him focused on promises that Gascón followed through with while he was in office, including not charging children as adults.

“He’s really been who he said he would be in a lot of ways,” Hoover said. “And those were things that people wanted then, and I think most of it hasn’t changed.”

Hochman ran as a centrist with a campaign that offered a “hard middle” approach to fighting crime. On election night, he credited his victory to a bipartisan coalition of people who considered public safety a “crossover issue” during polarizing political times.

With Proposition 36 now in effect, several other California officials have vowed to use the power of new legislation to hold people accountable, and criminal justice reform advocates show no signs of backing down.

Hoover noted that Hochman’s platform does include messages of moderation from the justice reform movement. During his inauguration speech, Hochman repeated his campaign promises to balance criminal justice reform and public safety and called California’s overpopulation in prisons a systemic failure. “I think he understood that to win, it couldn’t just be about ‘Gascon is bad’ and ‘crime is up,’” Hoover said. “We see, even in the campaign that was against the progressive reformer, signs of progressive reform messaging.”

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats

Published

on

Video: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats

new video loaded: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats

Virginia voters approved a new map that could flip four House seats away from Republicans going into the 2026 midterm elections. It was the latest fight in the national redistricting war.

By Shawn Paik

April 22, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

WATCH: Sen Warren unloads on Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh in explosive hearing showdown

Published

on

WATCH: Sen Warren unloads on Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh in explosive hearing showdown

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Sparks flew on Capitol Hill as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., accused Federal Reserve nominee Kevin Warsh of being a potential “sock puppet” for President Donald Trump.

Warsh, tapped by Trump in January to lead the Federal Reserve, faced a two-and-a-half-hour confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

If confirmed, he would take the helm of the world’s most powerful central bank, shaping interest rates, borrowing costs and the financial outlook for millions of American households for the next four years.

WHO IS KEVIN WARSH, TRUMP’S PICK TO SUCCEED JEROME POWELL AS FED CHAIR?

Advertisement

Kevin Warsh, nominee for chairman of the Federal Reserve, listens to ranking member Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., make an opening statement during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

In her opening remarks, Warren sharply criticized Warsh’s record and questioned his independence, arguing he is “uniquely ill-suited for the job as Fed chair” and warning he could give Trump influence over the central bank.

She accused Warsh of enabling Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis, which fell during his tenure as a Federal Reserve governor when he served from 2006 to 2011.

“In our meeting last week, we discussed the 2008 financial crash, where 8 million people lost their jobs, 10 million people lost their homes and millions more lost their life savings,” Warren said. “Giant banks, however, got hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts… and he said to me that he has no regrets about anything he did.”

She added that Warsh “worked tirelessly to arrange multibillion-dollar bailouts” for Wall Street CEOs, with nothing for American families.

Advertisement

The hearing grew more tense as Warren pivoted to ethics concerns, pressing Warsh over his undisclosed financial holdings and questioning him over links to business dealings connected to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The two spoke over each other and raised their voices in a heated exchange on Capitol Hill.

WARSH’S $226 MILLION FORTUNE UNDER SCRUTINY AS FED NOMINEE FACES SENATE CONFIRMATION

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: The Fed has been plagued by deeply disturbing ethics scandals in recent years. It’s critical that the next chair have no financial conflicts — none. You have more than $100 million in investments that you have refused to disclose. So let me ask: do the Juggernaut Fund or THSDFS LLC invest in companies affiliated with President Trump or his family, companies tied to money laundering, Chinese-controlled firms, or financing vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein?

Kevin Warsh: Senator, I’ve worked closely with the Office of Government Ethics and agreed to divest all of my financial assets.

Advertisement

Warren: Could you answer my question, please? You have more than $100 million in undisclosed assets. Are any of those investments tied to the entities I just mentioned? It’s a yes-or-no question.

Warsh: I have worked tirelessly with ethics officials and agreed to sell all of my assets before taking the oath of office.

Warren: Are you refusing to tell us if you have investments in vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein? You just won’t say?

Warsh: What I’m telling you is those assets will be sold if I’m confirmed.

Warren: Will you disclose how you plan to divest these assets? The public might question your motives if, for example, someone who profits from predicting Fed policy cuts you a $100 million check as you take office.

Advertisement

Sen. Elizabeth Warren questions Kevin Warsh during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Warsh: I’ve reached a full agreement with the Office of Government Ethics and will divest those assets before taking the oath.

Warren: I’m asking a very straightforward question. Will you disclose how you divest those assets?

Warsh: As I’ve said, I’ve worked with ethics officials.

Warren: I’ll take that as a no.

Advertisement

In a separate exchange, Warren invoked Trump’s past statements about the Fed and challenged Warsh to prove his independence in real time.

She insisted that Warsh answer whether he believes Trump won the 2020 presidential election and if he would name policies of the president with which he disagrees. The hopeful future Fed chair dodged the question and said he would remain apolitical, if confirmed.

THE ONE LINE IN WARSH’S TESTIMONY SIGNALING A BREAK FROM THE FED’S STATUS QUO

Warren: Donald Trump has made clear he does not want an independent Fed. He has said, “Anybody that disagrees with me will never be Fed chairman.” He’s also said interest rates will drop “when Kevin gets in.” Let’s check out your independence and your courage. We’ll start easy. Mr. Warsh, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?

Warsh: Senator, we should keep politics out of the Federal Reserve.

Advertisement

Warren: I’m asking a factual question.

Warsh: This body certified the election.

Warren: That’s not what I asked. Did Donald Trump lose in 2020?

Warsh: The Fed should stay out of politics.

Warren: In our meeting, you said you’re a “tough guy” who can stand up to President Trump. So name one aspect of his economic agenda you disagree with.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Kevin Warsh listens to a question during a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Warsh: That’s not something I’m prepared to do. The Fed should stay in its lane.

Warren: Just one place where you disagree.

Warsh: I do have one disagreement — he said I looked like I was out of central casting. I think I’d look older and grayer.

Advertisement

Warren: That’s adorable. But we need a Fed chair who is independent. If you can’t answer these questions, you don’t have the courage or the independence.

Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: He honked to support a ‘No Kings’ rally. A cop busted him

Published

on

Commentary: He honked to support a ‘No Kings’ rally. A cop busted him

On March 28, a sunny Saturday in southwestern Utah, Jack Hoopes and his wife, Lorna, brought their homemade signs to the local “No Kings” rally.

The couple joined a crowd of 1,500 or so marching through the main picnic area of a park in downtown St. George. Their signs — cut-out words on a black background — chided lawmakers for failing to stand up to President Trump and urged America to “make lying wrong again.”

After about an hour, the two were ready to go home. They got in their silver Volvo SUV, but before pulling away, Jack Hoopes decided to swing past the demonstration, which was still going strong. He tooted his horn, twice, in a show of solidarity.

That’s when things took a curious turn.

A police officer parked in the middle of the street warned Hoopes not to honk; at least that’s what he thinks the officer said as Hoopes drove past the chanting crowd. When he spotted two familiar faces, Hoopes hit the horn a third time — a friendly, howdy sort of honk. “It wasn’t like I was being obnoxious,” he said, “or laying on the horn.”

Advertisement

Hoopes turned a corner and the cop, lights flashing, pulled him over. He asked Hoopes for his license and registration. He returned a few moments later. A passing car sounded its horn. “Are you going to stop him, too?” Hoopes asked.

That did not sit well. The officer said he’d planned to let Hoopes off with a warning. Instead, he charged the 71-year-old retired potato farmer with violating Utah’s law on horns and warning devices. He issued a citation, with a fine punishable up to $50.

Hoopes — a law school graduate and prosecutor in the days before he took up potato farming — is fighting back, even though he estimates the legal skirmishing could cost him considerably more than the maximum fine. The ticket might have resulted from pique on the officer’s part. But Hoopes doesn’t think so. He sees politics at play.

“I’ve beeped my horn for [the pro-law enforcement] Back the Blue. I’ve beeped my horn for Black Lives Matter,” Hoopes said. “I’ve seen a lot of people honk for Trump and for MAGA.”

He’s also seen plenty of times when people honked their horns to celebrate high school championships and the like.

Advertisement

But Hoopes has never heard of anyone being pulled over, much less ticketed, for excessive or unlawful honking. “I think it’s freedom of expression,” he said.

Or should be.

Jack and Lorna Hoopes made their own protest signs to bring to the “No Kings” rally in St. George, Utah.

(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)

Advertisement

St. George is a fast-growing community of about 100,000 residents set amid the jagged red-rock peaks of the Mojave Desert. It’s a jumping-off point for Zion National Park, about 40 miles east, and a mecca for golf, hiking and mountain-bike riding.

It’s also Trump Country.

Washington County, where St. George is located, gave Trump 75% of its vote in 2024, with Kamala Harris winning a scant 23%. That emphatic showing compares with Trump’s 59% performance statewide.

St. George is where Hoopes and his wife live most of the time. When summer and its 100-degree temperatures hit, they retreat to southeast Idaho. The couple get along well with their neighbors in both places, Hoopes said, even though they’re Democrats living in ruby-red country. It’s not as though they just tolerate folks, or hold their noses to get by.

“Most of my friends are conservative,” Hoopes said. “Some of the Trump people are very good people. We just have a difference of opinion where our country is going.”

Advertisement

He was speaking from a hotel parking lot in Arizona near Lake Havasu while embarked on an annual motorcycle ride through the Southwest: four days, a dozen riders, 1,200 miles. Most of his companions are Trump supporters, Hoopes said, and, just like back home, everyone gets on fine.

“Right?” he called out.

“No!” a voice hollered back.

Actually, Hoopes joked, his charitable road mates let him ride along because they consider him handicapped — his disability being his political ideology.

Hoopes is not exactly a hellion. In 2014, he and his wife traveled to Africa to participate in humanitarian work and promote sustainable agriculture in Kenya and Uganda. In 2020, they worked as Red Cross volunteers helping wildfire victims in Northern California.

Advertisement

Virtually his entire life has been spent on the right side of the law, though Hoopes allowed as how he has racked up a few speeding tickets over the years. (His career as a prosecutor lasted four years and involved three murder cases in the first 12 months before he left the legal profession behind and took up farming.)

He’s never had any problems with the police in St. George. “They seem to be decent,” Hoopes said.

A department spokesperson, Tiffany Mitchell, said illicit honking is not a widespread problem in the placid, retiree-heavy community, but there are some who have been cited for violations. She denied any political motivation in Hoopes’ case.

“He must’ve felt justified,” Mitchell said of the officer who issued the citation. “I can’t imagine that politics had anything to do with it.”

And yes, she said, honking a horn can be a political statement protected by the 1st Amendment. “But, just like anything else, it can turn criminal,” Mitchell said, and apparently that’s how the officer felt on March 28 “and that’s the direction he took it.”

Advertisement

The matter now rests before a judge, residing in a legal system that has lately been tested and twisted in remarkable ways.

A pair of hands resting on a traffic citation given for alleged excessive honking

Jack Hoopes’ case is now before a judge in St. George, Utah.

(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)

As he left an initial hearing earlier this month, Hoopes said his phone pinged with a fresh headline out of Washington. Trump’s Justice Department, it was reported, was asking a federal appeals court to throw out the convictions of 12 people found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

“We have a president that pardons people that broke into the Capitol and defecated” in the hallways and congressional offices, Hoopes said. “Police officers died because of it, and yet I get picked up for honking my horn?”

Advertisement

Hoopes’ next court appearance, a pretrial conference, is set for July 15.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending