Connect with us

Politics

Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out

Published

on

Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out

Despite a plea from the head of the California Democratic Party for underperforming candidates to drop out of the governor’s race, all but one of the party’s top hopefuls spurned the request.

Party leaders fear the growing possibility that the crowded field will split the Democratic electorate in the state’s June top-two primary election and result in two Republicans advancing to the November ballot, ensuring a Republican governor being elected for the first time since 2006.

His advice largely unheeded, state party Chairman Rusty Hicks on Thursday said the fate of a Democratic victory now rests squarely on the gubernatorial candidates who flouted him.

“The candidates for Governor now have a chance to showcase a viable path to win,” Hicks said in a statement Thursday.

Eight top Democratic candidates filed the official paperwork to appear on the June ballot after Hicks released a letter on Tuesday urging those “who cannot show meaningful progress towards winning” to drop out. Friday is the deadline to file to appear on the primary election ballot. On March 21, the secretary of state’s office will formally announce who will appear on the June ballot.

Advertisement

“It sounded like someone who has his head in the sand,” former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said of Hicks’ open letter. “[Most] of us filed within 24 hours of getting that letter. It created some press but not much else. It didn’t impact [most] of the candidates and it certainly didn’t impact my candidacy.”

Democratic strategist Elizabeth Ashford said it was appropriate for Hicks and other Democratic leaders to make a public plea as opposed to keeping such discussions solely behind closed doors.

But the response showed the limited power of the modern-day party bosses.

“It’s definitely not Tammany Hall,” said Ashford, referring to the storied Democratic political machine that had a grip on New York City politics for nearly a century. “The party and Rusty are influential and they are helpful and that is their role. I don’t think anyone would be comfortable with outright public strong-arming of specific candidates.”

Ashford, who worked for former Govs. Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with former Vice President Kamala Harris when she served as state attorney general, added that the minimal power of the state GOP is likely a factor in the dynamics of Democrats’ decision to stay in the race. Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by almost a 2-to-1 margin in the state, and Democrats control every statewide elected office and hold supermajorities in both chambers of the California Legislature.

Advertisement

“If there were a strong viable opposition that existed, if the Republican Party was actually relevant in California, I think that would sort of force greater unity amongst Democrats,” she said.

Just one of the nine major Democrats did heed the party chair’s message. Ian Calderon, a former Los Angeles-area Assemblyman who consistently polled near the bottom of the field, withdrew from the race and endorsed Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) on Thursday.

Candidates cannot withdraw their name from the ballot once they officially file to run for office, leading to some fears that even if other candidates drop out of the race, a crowded primary ballot could still split California’s liberal votes.

“I’m disappointed most of them will be on the ballot,” said Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the California Federation of Labor Unions, which will announce whether it endorses in the governor’s race on March 16. But “I do still think you can have people drop out of the race or become viable. I think that there are candidates who know viability is a real thing they have to show in coming weeks” before ballots start being mailed to voters.

Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said she is “still worried” about the prospect of two Republicans winning the top two spots in the June primary, shutting Democrats out of any chance of winning the governor’s office in November.

Advertisement

“I didn’t have any specifics of who I wanted to do what,” she said. “I’m just very, very concerned and the stakes are really high right now and seem to be getting worse by the day.”

Republican candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, said he is “confident that I’ll be in the top two” along with a Democratic candidate. “I find it very difficult to believe that the Democratic Party will just surrender California and allow two Republicans to be in the top two.”

Hilton made the comments Thursday after a gubernatorial forum in Sacramento hosted by the California Assn. of Realtors focused on housing and homeownership. Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and former Rep. Katie Porter also attended. Swalwell, who is currently in Washington, joined the panel virtually.

During the panel, candidates were in broad agreement about the need to reduce barriers and costs in order to build more housing in California, where the median single-family home costs more than $820,000. Many also endorsed proposals to disincentivize private investment firms from buying up homes as well as a $25-billion bond proposed by former Sen. Bob Hertzberg to help first-time homebuyers afford a down payment.

“This really isn’t a debate because we’re agreeing so much with each other,” Hilton said at one point during the event.

Advertisement

That political alignment on one of the most pressing issues facing California may explain why voters are having such a difficult time deciding who to support.

A recent poll of the Public Policy Institute of California found that the five candidates topping the crowded field were within 4 percentage points of one another: Porter, Swalwell, Hilton, Democratic hedge fund founder Tom Steyer and Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Earlier polls had Hilton and Bianco leading the field, though many voters remained undecided.

Some candidates took issue with Hicks’ push to cull the field, noting that most of the lower-polling candidates he asked to drop out are people of color.

“Our political system is rigged, corrupted by the political elites, the wealthy and well connected,” state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who is Black and Latino, said in a video posted on social media in response to the open letter. “The California Democratic Party is essentially telling every person of color in the race for Governor to drop out.”

Villaraigosa argued that enough voters remain undecided that it was too early for quality candidates to call it quits.

Advertisement

“Most people don’t even know who’s in the race,” said Villaraigosa. “It’s premature to be thinking about getting out of the race. I certainly am not considering it and I feel no pressure.”

Aside from the opinion polls, other indicators on who may emerge from the pack a candidates are slowly emerging.

Though it wasn’t enough to win the party’s endorsement, Swalwell won support from 24% of delegates at the state Democratic convention last month, the most of any party candidate.

While spending is no guarantee of success, Steyer has donated $47.4 million of his own wealth to his campaign. Mahan, who recently entered the race and is supported by Silicon Valley leaders, has quickly raised millions of dollars, as have two independent expenditures committees backing his bid.

Ashford said part of candidates’ decisions to remain in the race could have been driven by their lengthy political careers, as well as Democrats’ crushing November redistricting victory.

Advertisement

“In several cases, these are people who have won statewide office,” she said. “It’s tough to feel like there may not be a sequel to that.”

Nixon reported from Sacramento and Mehta from Los Angeles.

Politics

Video: Vance Gets Heckled at Turning Point Event and Pushes Back Against Pope

Published

on

Video: Vance Gets Heckled at Turning Point Event and Pushes Back Against Pope

new video loaded: Vance Gets Heckled at Turning Point Event and Pushes Back Against Pope

transcript

transcript

Vance Gets Heckled at Turning Point Event and Pushes Back Against Pope

An audience member heckled Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday at a Turning Point USA event. And Vance addressed Pope Leo’s criticism of the war in Iran, saying he should be careful when speaking about theology.

[Heckler] “Jesus Christ does not support genocide.” [Vance] “I certainly think the answer is yes, [Vance] and I agree. [Vance] Jesus Christ does not — [Vance] I agree, Jesus Christ certainly does not support genocide, [Vance] whoever yelled that out from the dark.” [Heckler] “You’re involved, JD. You’re killing children.” [Vance] “Right now, you see more humanitarian aid [Vance] coming into Gaza than it has [Vance] any time in the past five years. I recognize that a lot of young voters don’t love the policy that we have in the Middle East.” “I like that the pope is an advocate for peace. I think that’s certainly one of his roles. On the other hand, how can you say that God is never on the side of those who wield the sword? Was God on the side of the Americans who liberated France from the Nazis? I think it’s very, very important for the pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology. And I think that one of these issues here is that there has been, is — again, hey, random dude screaming, I told you I’d respond to your point.”

Advertisement
An audience member heckled Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday at a Turning Point USA event. And Vance addressed Pope Leo’s criticism of the war in Iran, saying he should be careful when speaking about theology.

By Shawn Paik

April 15, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Spanberger signs gun bills, makes a proposed gun ban even harsher

Published

on

Spanberger signs gun bills, makes a proposed gun ban even harsher

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed a series of gun-control bills Tuesday, toughening a proposed assault-firearms ban before sending it back to lawmakers, which drew immediate backlash from Republicans and is likely to draw a constitutional objection from the Justice Department.

The Democrat governor’s changes to House Bill 217/Senate Bill 749 remove the word “fixed” from part of the bill’s definition of an assault firearm, which could sharply expand the range of semi-automatic rifles and pistols swept into the ban, Republicans say.

“If there was any doubt that Gov. Spanberger was coming for our firearms, this substitute removes it,” House of Delegates Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, R-Scott, told News WCYB 5 in a statement. “Not only does it keep in place the de facto ban on some of the most common firearms in Virginia, it goes further and appears to create a ban on any firearm that can accept a magazine of more than 15 rounds.

“That includes the vast majority of firearms in Virginia that are in common use for legal purposes.”

Advertisement

ATLANTA TEEN ARRESTED FOR MURDER AFTER FATAL SHOOTING OF 12-YEAR-OLD INSIDE HOME

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger delivers the Democratic response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on February 24, 2026 in Williamsburg, Virginia. Spanberger is serving in her first year as governor and is the first woman to hold the position in the Commonwealth of Virginia. (Getty Images)

The U.S. Department of Justice warned in a letter released Friday that the measure raises constitutional concerns and threatened legal action if the state enforces a ban that infringes on protected firearms.

“This letter provides formal notice that the Civil Rights Division will commence litigation in the event the Commonwealth of Virginia enacts certain bills that unconstitutionally limit law-abiding Americans’ individual right to bear arms,” Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon wrote in the letter to Virginia Democrat Attorney General Jay Jones before Spanberger’s moves Tuesday. “Specifically, SB 749, as written, would require Virginia law enforcement agencies to engage in a practice of unconstitutionally restricting the making, buying, or selling of AR-15s and many other semi-automatic firearms in common use.

“The Second Amendment protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use AR-15 style semiautomatic rifles for lawful purposes,” she added, citing the unanimous Supreme Court opinion that the AR-15 is “both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.”

Advertisement

Dhillon said her division “will seek to enjoin any attempt to infringe the right of law-abiding Virginians to acquire constitutional protected arms[.]”

“@SpanbergerForVA is on notice: 2A rights SHALL NOT BE infringed,” Dhillon wrote Friday on X. “We are closely watching—in the event any unlawful legislation is enacted, we will sue. @CivilRights will protect the 2A rights of law-abiding citizens in Virginia.

DESANTIS URGES FLORIDA LAWMAKERS TO BAN COUSIN MARRIAGES, LINKS PRACTICE TO ‘STEALTH JIHAD’

Harmeet Dhillon announced a new Second Amendment section to protect gun rights and challenge state restrictions. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Undaunted, Spanberger moved forward framing the law as a public-safety push, saying the state is trying to balance Second Amendment rights with efforts to reduce gun violence.

Advertisement

“I grew up in a family where responsible gun ownership was expected, and I carried a firearm every day as a former federal agent,” she wrote in a statement. “I support the Second Amendment. But gun violence is the leading cause of death for children and teenagers in America, and that should motivate all of us to ask ourselves what we can do to mitigate this harm.

“This is why I’ve made amendments to provide clarity for both responsible gun owners and law enforcement, making clear what these changes mean in practice — as Virginians safely purchase and store their firearms,” she continued. “These commonsense steps will help keep our families, our communities, and our law enforcement officers safe.”

GUNS AND GANJA: SUPREME COURT SKEPTICAL OF FEDERAL LAW BANNING FIREARM POSSESSION FOR REGULAR MARIJUANA USERS

The bill would ban the future sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of covered firearms and magazines over 15 rounds, while exempting firearms legally owned before July 1, 2026. It would create a Class 1 misdemeanor for violations and impose limits on how grandfathered firearms could later be transferred or sold.

The legislation now heads back to the General Assembly, which must decide whether to accept Spanberger’s amendments.

Advertisement

DESANTIS CALLS FOR IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE FOR RELEASING SEX OFFENDER WHO THEN ALLEGEDLY KILLED STEPDAUGHTER

Spanberger also signed several other gun-related bills without changes, including House Bill 21, which requires firearm manufacturers, dealers and distributors to adopt “reasonable controls” aimed at preventing illegal sales and misuse. The law also opens the door for civil action by the attorney general, local governments and private individuals if a firearm industry member’s actions or omissions are alleged to have contributed to public harm.

She also signed House Bill 110, which bars leaving a firearm in plain view inside an unattended vehicle, and House Bill 40, which bans the manufacture, sale, transfer and possession of unserialized homemade firearms, commonly known as ghost guns.

“In all, the General Assembly has forwarded to you over 20 bills that restrict Second Amendment rights,” Dhillon’s warning to Jones concluded. “I urge you to reconsider allowing any bill that would infringe on the lawful use of protected firearms by law-abiding citizens to become law.

“In an effort to avoid unnecessary litigation, the Second Amendment Section stands ready to meet and confer with attorneys in the Virginia Attorney General Office.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“The Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens shall not be infringed.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

In 1960, fears over papal influence. In 2026, a president attacks a pope

Published

on

In 1960, fears over papal influence. In 2026, a president attacks a pope

It was hard to miss President Trump’s very public spat with Pope Leo XIV this week.

The split was the first time in modern memory that an American president has so openly badmouthed a sitting pontiff, or, for that matter, distributed an image depicting himself as Jesus Christ. Critics cried “blasphemy!” even as supporters continued to stand behind the man whose presidency, some argue, was God sent.

Students of American history will recall an earlier incident that pitted papal and presidential authority against each other. The concern: that a president would align himself too closely to the church, or even take orders from the pope.

That anxiety seeped into the 1960 presidential campaign of John F. Kennedy, whose eventual victory would make him the first Catholic president.

Back then, Kennedy was constantly fending off accusations from Protestant ecclesiastic types who were wary that his nomination meant the pontiff, John XXIII, was already packing his bags for a move into the White House.

Advertisement

President John F. Kennedy meets with Pope Paul VI at the Vatican in July 1963, one month after Paul succeeded John XXIII as pontiff.

(Bettmann Archive / Getty Images)

The issue was so pronounced that 150 clergymen and laypeople formed Citizens for Religious Freedom, which in a pamphlet warned, “It is inconceivable to us that a Roman Catholic President would not be under extreme pressure by the hierarchy of his church to accede to its policies and demands.”

One particularly loud voice among the ministers was the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale, a popular and influential pastor and author. Peale was especially disturbed by Kennedy’s prospects.

Advertisement

“Our American culture is at stake,” he said at a meeting of the ministers. “I don’t say it won’t survive, but it won’t be what it was.”

The group asked Kennedy to “drop by Houston” to make clear his views on faith and government. He agreed, making a televised speech at the Rice Hotel, where he famously spelled out his firm opinions on the separation of church and state.

“I am not the Catholic candidate for president,” Kennedy told the group. “I am the Democratic Party’s nominee for president who happens to be Catholic.”

Time magazine reflected on the address some years later, concluding that the speech had gone so well for Kennedy “that many felt the dramatic moment was an important part of his victory.”

Since then, modern presidents have occasionally found themselves at odds with the Vatican. Typically Republican presidents would hear from the pope about foreign wars, while Democratic presidents were derided over abortion policies.

Advertisement

But such disagreements tended to be handled with the decorous language of diplomacy.

A man in a dark suit presents a medal on a ribbon to a man in white skullcap and religious robes, seated in an armchair

President George W. Bush presents Pope John Paul II with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in Rome on June 4 , 2004. The pope reminded Bush of the Vatican’s opposition to the war in Iraq. Bush praised him as a “devoted servant of God.”

(Eric Vandeville/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images)

Then came Trump, who is now being accused of openly mocking the Catholic faith and the 1st Amendment. He called Leo weak on crime and foreign policy, among other things. A self-described nondenominational Christian who says his favorite book is the Bible, Trump’s hasn’t shied from bashing the pontiff, nor has he hesitated to blur the line separating church and state.

Where Kennedy argued for an absolute separation, Trump has advanced a model of religious resurgence, promising “pews will be fuller, younger and more faithful than they have been in years.” Through initiatives including the “America Prays” program launched last year, the White House has sought to bring “bring back God” by inviting millions of Americans to prayer sessions. The webpage for the program focuses features only Christian Scripture.

Advertisement

“From the earliest days of the republic, faith in God has been the ultimate source of the nation’s strength,” Trump said at a National Prayer Breakfast in February.

A man in a dark suit, hands clasped on a desk, is surrounded by other people standing near windows with gold curtains

President Trump, then-Vice President Mike Pence and faith leaders say a prayer during the signing of a proclamation in the Oval Office on Sept. 1, 2017. .

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

In the United States, the Catholic Church historically has “loved the 1st Amendment” and its guarantee of religious liberty and, as a result, largely kept some distance from government, according to Tom Reese, a Jesuit priest and religious commentator. After its failures attempting to influence monarchs and politicians in Europe, the Catholic Church “didn’t want the government interfering with them and knew that it wasn’t their right to interfere with the government,” Reese said.

Kennedy loved the 1st Amendment too. He put it above his own religious beliefs, and said as much on his way to the White House.

Advertisement

“I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the 1st Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty,” he said. “Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so.”

A man with glasses, in red vestments, holds out his hands in prayer in a room with ornate blue and yellow mosaic walls

Pope Leo XIV meets with members of the community in Algiers at the Basilica of Our Lady of Africa on April 13, 2026.

(Vatican Pool via Getty Images)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending