Connect with us

Politics

Commentary: California can have both easy voting and quicker election results. Here’s how.

Published

on

Commentary: California can have both easy voting and quicker election results. Here’s how.

Every two years, elite athletes compete in the Olympics, biennial plants — like carrots and onions — produce seeds and people across America look on with consternation and mounting impatience as California counts its election ballots.

The prolonged tally has become as much a part of electioneering in the Golden State as wall-to-wall advertising, high-flown promises and overstuffed mailboxes groaning beneath the weight of endless campaign fliers.

The tabulation — which can last weeks past election day — is the product, in large part, of a commendable objective: Encouraging as many people as possible to vote.

California, which mails a ballot to every eligible voter, ranks near the top of states in the ease of its elections. That’s something to be celebrated. Voting is a way to help steer the direction of our state and nation and invest, as an active participant, in its future.

Advertisement

Yay, participatory democracy!

Unfortunately, the lag time between election day and the final results has led to all sorts of wild, unfounded claims, peddled mainly by Republicans seeking to curry favor with the sore-losing President Trump by parroting his conspiratorial gabbling.

“They hold the elections open for weeks after election day,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said recently, falsely suggesting that chicanery cost the GOP three House seats in California in 2024. “It looks on its face to be fraudulent.”

That’s a lot of, um, hooey.

There is no rampant cheating or election fraud in California. Period. Full stop.

Advertisement

Still, those sorts of phony statements have deeply diminished faith in our elections and our increasingly rickety democracy.

So — what if it were possible to preserve California’s friendly voting system while, at the same time, speeding up the tabulation of its many millions of ballots?

Kim Alexander believes it’s possible to do both.

“We need to stop explaining why it’s taking so long and start figuring out how to [produce election results] in a more satisfying way,” she said. “There are a lot of things that we could do better and do differently. It just takes some creative thinking and some will.”

Simply put, “The longer it takes to count ballots, the more voter confidence erodes.”

Advertisement

Alexander, head of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, has spent more than three decades working to make the state’s elections more efficient, more transparent and more accountable.

Her interest in politics and election mechanics came about while growing up in Culver City, where her father served as a councilman and mayor.

As a 7-year-old, stationed in the garage, it was Alexander’s job to track the returns in her dad’s first campaign, toting up the numbers at an election night party while her mom, posted in the kitchen, called the city clerk for updates. Even at that young age, Alexander learned the importance of a fair and efficient tabulation process.

Over the years, she watched as her father’s political career was stymied by a Democratic gerrymander, which blocked any hopes he had of being elected to Congress or the Legislature as a moderate Republican. She saw firsthand the influence of money in politics. (Her father told her of turning away donations that came with strings attached.) That helped turn her into a political reformer.

After working as a legislative staffer and serving a stint at Common Cause, the good-government lobbying group, Alexander took over the California Voter Foundation in 1994.

Advertisement

As a political noncombatant, Alexander won’t say how it feels, and whether these days she’s more or less optimistic, watching as reckless attacks on our elections come from inside the White House. “I like to describe myself as a realist with high goals,” is all she’d allow.

There are good reasons why it takes California so long to count its ballots.

First off, there are a lot of them; more than 16 million residents voted in the last presidential election, more than the population of all but 10 states. Voting by mail has exploded in popularity and it takes longer to count those ballots, as many don’t arrive until after election day. Also, there are a number of safeguards to prevent fraud and ensure an accurate count. “We’re checking all the signatures,” Alexander said. “We’re making sure nobody votes twice.”

Simply explaining those facts can help build trust, she said. However, that won’t speed up the state’s vote counting. Here, Alexander suggested, are some things that can:

— Increase funding for California’s 58 counties to expand equipment, staff and the space needed to process ballots. In recent years, the state has been asking local election officials to do more and more without reimbursing their costs.

Advertisement

— Educate voters and encourage them to turn their ballots in earlier. Along those lines, a system called “sign, scan and go” allows voters to return their mail ballots in person at a designated polling place. A pilot program in Placer County found that that shaved three to four days off processing time. The system could be implemented statewide.

— Better manage California’s voter database, doing so from the top down in Sacramento, rather than having counties oversee their data and feed it into the system. That bottom-up approach creates delays and a lag time in processing ballots.

— Create “ballot swap” days to speed delivery of out-of-county ballots where they belong, also saving time. (Under California law, voters can return their ballot anywhere in the state, but it must be routed to their home county to be tabulated. That process can now take more than a week.)

The problem, apart from perennial budget pressures, is that interest in election mechanics — a technical and arcane subject if ever there was one — is episodic and fleeting. It’s like worrying about a leaky roof when the temperature is 95 degrees outside and the sun is blazing.

But even without voters clamoring to address California’s slow-poke vote count, lawmakers should act.

Advertisement

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently rose to defend the state’s “safe and secure elections” against one of Trump’s many unwarranted attacks. If he wants to burnish his credentials for a 2028 presidential run — which Newsom very much does — one way would be to speed up delivery of its election results.

That way the rest of the country won’t be asking again in November: What the heck’s with California?

Politics

Supreme Court Deals Further Blow to Voting Rights Act

Published

on

Supreme Court Deals Further Blow to Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down Louisiana’s voting map, finding that lawmakers had illegally used race when drawing up a new majority-Black district.

The decision was 6-to-3, split along ideological lines. The conservative majority asserted that the opinion was a limited ruling that preserved a central tenet of the Voting Rights Act, but the court’s liberal wing, in dissent, argued that the justices had taken the final step to dismantle the landmark civil rights law.

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that the court had kept intact the Voting Rights Act but that Louisiana’s new majority-minority district violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

For decades, lawmakers have crafted congressional districts with a focus on ensuring that minority voters had the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, often working to create majority-minority districts as they labored under scrutiny from federal courts that guaranteed the rights of minorities because of the Voting Rights Act.

Justice Alito wrote that the justices were updating the 40-year-old framework that courts look to for evaluating the use of race in drawing up congressional districts, essentially saying that the Voting Rights Act only prevents lawmakers from drawing maps that would intentionally limit the power of minority voters.

Advertisement

To successfully challenge district maps under the Voting Rights Act now, Justice Alito wrote, challengers will need to show proof a state “intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.” A legal challenge that “cannot disentangle race from the state’s race-neutral considerations, including politics,” will fail.

Justice Alito added that the new framework “reflects important developments” since the court laid out factors for evaluating the use of race in voting maps in 1986. He cited increased voter registration and turnout by minorities, writing that “the racial gap in voter registration and turnout” had “largely disappeared.”

Justice Elena Kagan, in dissent, countered that the practical effect of the decision would be to make it nearly impossible to use race when drawing up voting maps, writing that “the court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity.”

Justice Kagan read her dissent from the bench, a rare move that often signals a justice’s strong displeasure with a decision.

It is unclear how the decision will impact the midterm elections amid the nationwide redistricting battle that has spiraled already into multiple states.

Advertisement

Coming in the middle of the primary calendar, there were still multiple states that could draw new maps, citing today’s decision. Republicans in Florida moved swiftly after the announcement. The state’s House approving a new map on Wednesday morning. Louisiana will likely lose one Democratic district when it finalizes a new map.

Got a news tip about the courts? If you have information to share about the Supreme Court or other federal courts, please contact us.

Any map that eliminated majority-minority districts and was drawn in the wake of the ruling would likely be challenged in court — potentially prompting a new wave of litigation.

Representative Troy Carter of Louisiana, a Democrat, condemned the ruling.

“It sends a dangerous signal that the progress we have made can be undone under the guise of legal theory,” Mr. Carter said in a statement. “The Voting Rights Act is not a relic. It is a living promise, a commitment that our democracy belongs to everyone.”

Advertisement

Wednesday’s decision marks the latest in a series of rulings by the justices to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965, often considered the crown jewel of the civil rights-era laws.

The case, Louisiana v. Callais, arose from a dispute over a new voting map drafted by Louisiana lawmakers after the 2020 census. Before then, only one of the state’s six congressional districts was majority Black, even though Black Louisianans made up about a third of the state’s population.

Two groups of Black voters sued in 2022, after state lawmakers adopted a new map that still included only one majority-Black district. They argued Louisiana had violated the Voting Rights Act by packing Black voters into one district, which had the effect of diluting the power of their votes. A federal judge agreed.

In 2024, state lawmakers tried again, this time adopting a map that included a second majority-Black district. A group of white Louisiana voters then challenged that map, claiming it was an illegal racial gerrymander. They pointed to the boundaries of the new district, which snakes diagonally across the state from the southeast to the northwest.

Lawmakers initially defended the map, arguing that the odd shape was the result of politics, not race. They said that lawmakers created the second district’s area to protect high-profile politicians, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican. The court has said it is acceptable to draw maps motivated by partisan advantage.

Advertisement

The Supreme Court first heard the challenge to the Louisiana map in spring 2025, considering whether state lawmakers had properly balanced race and political considerations. But in June, rather than announce a decision, the justices said they would rehear it in the fall. In August, the justices announced they were expanding the case, asking the lawyers to prepare for an argument on a much broader question than they had originally considered: Whether the state’s creation of a second majority-minority district violated the Constitution.

That announcement raised alarms among proponents of the Voting Rights Act, who feared that the court’s conservative majority — long skeptical of the legislation — would use the case to deal a fatal blow to the law and rule its provision requiring lawmakers to consider race was unconstitutional.

Just two years ago, the justices heard a similar dispute over Alabama’s congressional map and cited the Voting Rights Act without finding it unconstitutional. In that case, Allen v. Milligan, the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s Republican supermajority illegally diluted the power of Black voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

But in that case, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion that he wondered whether there should be a time limit on the ability of states to “conduct race-based redistricting,” writing that it could not “extend indefinitely into the future.”

During the oral arguments in the Louisiana case, Justice Kavanaugh and several other conservative justices appeared to question whether there should be a sunset to taking race into account in drawing voting maps.

Advertisement

“What exactly do you think the end point should be, or how would we know, for the intentional use of race to create districts?” Justice Kavanaugh had asked a lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who argued to uphold the Voting Rights Act.

Nick Corasaniti and Rick Rojas contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

Politics

Woman exposed running visa fraud scheme spanning years, posing as immigration officer

Published

on

Woman exposed running visa fraud scheme spanning years, posing as immigration officer

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A 29-year-old Texas woman is now in custody and facing federal fraud charges after being exposed for impersonating an immigration officer in a multi-year visa fraud scheme.

Advertisement

Mayra Collins, a resident of Brownsville, a city on the far southern tip of Texas, is facing five counts of fraudulently posing as a federal agent with various agencies in 2022 and 2025, Acting U.S. Attorney John Marck announced.

The charges against Collins are for two counts of wire fraud and three counts of impersonating a federal agent, according to local affiliate Fox 26.

The DOJ said Collins first allegedly posed as a federal immigration officer. She allegedly falsely represented that she could expedite the process for obtaining U.S. visas and took money from four victims. In 2025, Collins also allegedly impersonated a Border Patrol agent with influence over the hiring of federal employees. She allegedly told one victim there were job positions available, but that they needed to send her money for uniforms and ballistic vests before beginning employment with Border Patrol.

ILLEGAL ALIEN ALLEGEDLY RAN FAKE DHS BRANCH, PASSED OUT ‘IMMUNITY’ CARDS DURING A $400 FRAUDULENT COURSE

U.S. Border Patrol officers apprehended drivers of two vehicles involved in an incident and recovered eight of nine migrants missing from a boat, leaving a 10-year-old child unaccounted for.

Advertisement

According to the DOJ, Collins “never worked for the United States” and “had no power to provide victims of her schemes with Visas or employment” with Border Patrol.

The woman is now facing up to 20 years in federal prison for the two counts of wire fraud and another three years for the impersonation charges. She is also facing a maximum fine of $250,000.

She is expected to make her initial court appearance before U.S. Magistrate Julie Hampton this Thursday.

Lora Ries, an immigration policy expert with the Heritage Foundation, explained that “the needless complexity of immigration law and the fragmented immigration bureaucracy spread across five federal departments are fertile ground for fraudsters.”

Ries, who is director of the Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, told Fox News Digital that Democrats “helped create these systemic conditions because they facilitate illegal immigration.”

Advertisement

CBP SEIZES MASSIVE METH HAUL WORTH MILLIONS STASHED IN SECRET TILE SHIPMENT

People return to the Mexican side of the Rio Grande river in Brownsville, Texas, on May 11, 2023, after dropping off migrants on the U.S. side. The U.S. ended its 40-month Covid-19 emergency and discarded the Title 42 law on the same day. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP)

“This perpetrator exploiting that confusing and scattered system is a consequence of their own making,” Ries said.

She noted that “Congress should greatly simplify immigration law and consolidate many of the immigration agencies for a better immigration system and to prevent such fraud.”

This comes as the DOJ and Department of Homeland Security ramp up the federal government’s investigation into a massive fraud scheme largely involving the Somali immigrant community in Minnesota. Federal officials raided 22 alleged fraud sites Tuesday morning.

Advertisement

The raids center on federal fraud investigations into largely Somali-owned businesses, including childcare facilities that registered their daycare with the state but were allegedly billing for care that was not provided.

EMMER SAYS MN FRAUD RAIDS SEND ‘CRYSTAL CLEAR’ MESSAGE AFTER FEDS HIT DOZENS OF SITES

Law enforcement officers seen getting into a vehicle outside of Quality learning center in Minneapolis on April 28, 2026. (Fox News)

Following news of the raids breaking, Vice President JD Vance, head of the administration’s fraud task force, remarked that the “task force and the DOJ will be relentless in exposing these fraudsters wherever they may be hiding.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

Commenting on the Minnesota crackdown, Ries told Fox News Digital that “Americans, particularly Minnesotans, are pleased to see the ongoing pursuit of justice against fraud in that state.”

“We’ve only seen a glimpse of both the immigration fraud and welfare fraud that have occurred in Minnesota,” she said, adding, “Significant criminal and immigration consequences are needed for all the perpetrators to achieve justice and to send a message to others throughout the country not to engage in fraud.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

John Seymour, Anaheim mayor and U.S. senator, dies at 88

Published

on

John Seymour, Anaheim mayor and U.S. senator, dies at 88

John Seymour was the rare politician who didn’t mind harming his career if it meant doing right by his constituents.

As the newly elected mayor of Anaheim in 1978, he angered the city’s Police Department by suggesting the creation of a citizens oversight commission after residents complained that officers regularly harassed and beat them.

The lifelong Republican upset his party’s conservative base in the 1980s as a state senator, when he announced his support for abortion rights and opposition to offshore drilling.

“I’m not going to always be right,” Seymour told reporters in 1990. “Therefore, to expect one to never change a position on an issue … is too much to ask.”

Appointed to the U.S. Senate in 1990 after Pete Wilson was elected governor, Seymour lost his seat to Dianne Feinstein two years later and never ran for public office again. He remains the last California Republican to serve in that role.

Advertisement

“John was a guy who had great courage, he had great goodwill and a damn good mind,” Wilson, who was mayor of San Diego when he first met Seymour in the 1970s, said Monday. “He not only enjoyed a little combat, he was willing to give the time necessary for it.”

Seymour died on April 18 at his home in Carlsbad. He was 88, and the cause was Alzheimer’s disease, according to his son John.

As his party swung to the right, the moderate Seymour had no problem with becoming a political afterthought.

Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, center, poses with senators on Capitol Hill in 1991. With Thomas, from left to right, are Sens. John Seymour (R-Calif.), Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Bob Dole (R-Kan.), Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), Connie Mack (R-Fla.) and Dan Coats (R-Ind.), right front.

(John Duricka / Associated Press)

Advertisement

“If somewhere in a footnote, history should record my public service, I would hope that they record me as one who cared more for people than for policy, one who was a no-nonsense guy who worked hard for those in need of help, but who wasn’t hesitant to knock heads of bureaucrats in order to get things done,” he told supporters at the kickoff to his Senate campaign in 1992.

Born in Chicago, Seymour settled in Southern California in the 1960s after a stint in the Marine Corps. The UCLA graduate started a real estate business in Orange County as the region transformed from farmland to suburbia. After four years on the Anaheim City Council, he became mayor in 1978.

He quickly established the pragmatic persona that would enable his rise in California politics.

Months after Seymour’s mayoral win, Anaheim police officers stormed a Latino neighborhood and beat up dozens of people in what became known as the Little People’s Park riots. At community meetings, Seymour admitted his shock at learning about the poor relations between the police and many residents.

Advertisement

The mayor described his approach as: “Don’t sweep it under the rug; don’t look the other way. Admit that we have a problem.”

At the same time, Seymour was negotiating with the Los Angeles Rams to move from the Coliseum to Orange County. While other O.C. officials proposed a new stadium, he convinced the Anaheim City Council to convert Angel Stadium into a multipurpose venue that he argued would create “the greatest opportunity for Anaheim since Disneyland and the California Angels.”

The Rams moved to the city in 1980. Two years later, Seymour was off to Sacramento as a state senator.

He became head of the Republican Senate caucus in his first year and bucked the stereotype of an Orange County GOP firebrand by largely eschewing culture war issues in favor of matters like higher pay for teachers and government support for poor parents that sometimes aligned him with Democrats. That made him few friends in his own party, with many finding his personal ambition grating — he once wrote a letter to then-Gov. George Deukmejian asking that he be appointed state treasurer — and a distraction from getting more of their own elected to Sacramento.

Seymour made no apologies for selling himself as a public servant while simultaneously seeking more power.

Advertisement

“I like to do things,” Seymour told The Times in 1987. “I’ve been a doer all my life. I don’t like to sit around sucking my thumb. I like to resolve problems.”

That year, conservative opponents deposed him as caucus chair. They snickered two years later when he announced that while he personally opposed abortion, he now supported a woman’s right to choose.

Sen. John Seymour in 1991.

Sen. John Seymour in 1991.

(Don Boomer / For The Times)

The impetus was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave states more leeway to regulate abortion. Since California had legalized the procedure decades earlier, Seymour reasoned that he should respect women’s choices. He spoke with people who were for and against abortion, and with his own family, before going public with his change of heart.

Advertisement

Naysayers accused the state senator of trying to pick up female voters as he was campaigning for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor against fellow Orange County legislator Marian Bergeson, who opposed abortion. The charge was bogus, according to longtime Seymour campaign advisor Eileen Padberg.

“He didn’t get talked into it — he was an effing Marine,” she said. “He had to be convinced in anything before making a decision. In my career representing hundreds of candidates, John was one of very few who consistently would say about their stances, ‘This is going to kill me, but I gotta do it.’”

Seymour lost the primary to Bergeson. Six months later, he was once again one of the most powerful Republicans in the state when he took the Senate seat Wilson had just vacated to become governor.

Seymour’s son John recalled his father getting the call from Wilson while the family was vacationing in Shasta.

“Dad knew that it was a heavy, weighted responsibility, and that it would affect the family,” John said. “But we kids said, ‘You should do this, if it makes you happy.’”

Advertisement

Seymour became the second Anaheim Republican to serve in the position, after Thomas Kuchel in the 1950s and 1960s.

Wilson told The Times that he originally wanted to keep his friend in Sacramento to help push through his agenda. But the governor figured he needed a trusted voice in Washington even more.

“You’re looking for people who are not only friends but are capable and experienced and understand what’s necessary,” Wilson said. “And I don’t think I was doing him a great favor, because it was a tough time for the state.”

California was weathering its worst recession in decades and a punishing drought. The state’s vaunted defense industry was shedding tens of thousands of jobs with the closure of military bases after the end of the Cold War.

The daunting task didn’t faze Seymour.

Advertisement

“I mean, you gotta be good to succeed in the private sector,” he told The Times in 1992. “But if you’re gonna succeed in getting things done in the public sector, you gotta be better than that! That’s the challenge!”

Seymour spent most of his short time in the Senate in triage mode. He lobbied especially hard for California’s real estate industry, calling himself the “realtors’ senator.” But the diminutive man’s plainspoken demeanor failed to gain traction with California voters — a 1991 Times profile deemed him “the unknown senator.” And his one moment in the national spotlight became fodder for opponents.

In the spring of 1992, Los Angeles erupted in deadly riots after a jury acquitted four police officers who beat Rodney King. As he once did in Anaheim, Seymour went on a listening tour across affected neighborhoods, accompanying President George H.W. Bush.

This time, Seymour was accused of seeking photo opportunities a month before his primary election and being tone-deaf to the riot’s root causes by airing television ads stating, “We can’t be tough enough on lawbreakers.” White House aides ridiculed him in the press as the “Velcro senator.” His Republican opponent, Orange County Rep. William Dannemeyer, labeled him “Senator Flip Flop.”

Seymour easily beat Dannemeyer, then faced Democrat Dianne Feinstein, the former San Francisco mayor whose narrow loss to Wilson in the governor’s race had earned her widespread name recognition. He received only 38% of the vote as Feinstein rode a Democratic wave that swept Bill Clinton into the White House and a record number of women into the U.S. Senate, including Barbara Boxer in California.

Advertisement

California Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer worked for Seymour at the time and saw his “regular guy” boss give “one of the kindest and most gracious concession speeches I’ve ever heard.”

“Then he went down to O.C. to be with his supporters,” Palmer said. “He was true to his roots.”

Wilson soon appointed Seymour to head the California Housing Finance Agency, which helps first-time home buyers access low-rate loans. He stayed in that role for two years before becoming chief executive of the Southern California Housing Development Corp. The Inland Empire nonprofit, which managed and built affordable housing complexes, is now known as National Community Renaissance, or National CORE.

John, who is the nonprofit’s vice president of acquisitions, said his father had no regrets about leaving politics behind because “housing was his passion. He saw it as a platform for people to grow. He would say, ‘Once you’re housed, you have a big, beautiful horizon to do anything.’”

Seymour did lean on his past to urge skeptical cities and counties to allow affordable housing projects, challenging them to be like him: do the right thing regardless of political cost.

Advertisement

“If in fact you’re going to try to change an environment in which a mayor or city council will do what they know in their hearts is right, you need to offset the political blow,” he said at a housing conference in Cathedral City in 2002. “I challenge you to form a coalition.”

Seymour is survived by his wife of 54 years, Judy; children John, Shad, Jeffrey, Barrett, Lisa Houser and Sarena Talbert; nine grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending