Connect with us

Politics

New poll shows most California voters want to see tougher punishment for theft, fentanyl crimes

Published

on

New poll shows most California voters want to see tougher punishment for theft, fentanyl crimes

A majority of likely California voters support stiffer penalties for crimes involving theft and fentanyl, according to a new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by The Times.

The results of the poll released Friday showed that 56% of Californians would support Proposition 36, an initiative on the November ballot that would impose stricter sentences for repetitive theft and offenses involving the deadly drug fentanyl.

The proposition has been at the center of a battle in the state Capitol this year as Republicans and law enforcement advocates call for the undoing of Democratic reform policies that downgraded some felonies to misdemeanors, which they blame for an increase in organized retail theft and “smash and grab” robberies.

The poll also gauges how voters feel about initiatives designed to respond to California’s high cost of living. According to the poll, a majority of likely voters support a measure to increase the state minimum wage to $18 per hour, though those surveyed were more divided over a measure that would embolden local governments to expand rent control but still lean toward “yes.”

Advertisement

The broad support for Proposition 36, the tough-on-crime measure, comes as Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Democrats try to balance frustrations about crime among Californians with criminal justice reform goals that voters once supported.

The initiative aims to overhaul parts of Proposition 47, a measure approved by voters a decade ago that downgraded some crime penalties in an effort to reduce the state’s prison population and offer nonviolent offenders more chances at rehabilitation and freedom.

Mark DiCamillo, director of the Berkeley IGS Poll, a nonpartisan survey of California public opinion, noted the “great visibility” of retail theft crimes — caught on camera or witnessed by voters in their communities — as a possible reason why more than twice as many voters said they support Proposition 36 than those who don’t.

“It’s kind of outrageous to voters, what they’re seeing, and they’re linking it to the approval of Proposition 47,” DiCamillo said.

Becky Warren, a spokesperson for the Yes on Proposition 36 campaign, said that the poll “confirms that Californians want real solutions to address our homelessness and drug crises” and that the measure will ensure that “repeat offenders face accountability and consequences.”

While advocates of the GOP-backed measure — which has garnered support from some Democrats including San Francisco Mayor London Breed — see it as a solution to some crime, opponents said it will lead to a costly rise in the state’s prison population.

Advertisement

Newsom and Democrats attempted to craft a rival ballot measure this summer that would have addressed crimes like shoplifting with a less punitive approach than the prosecutor-driven Proposition 36. That measure, though, was abruptly abandoned by the governor last month amid chaotic deal-making in the Capitol.

Anthony York, a former spokesperson for Newsom who now serves as a spokesperson for the No on Proposition 36 campaign, said he’s confident that as election day nears, and voters better understand the nuances of the initiative, they will change their minds.

“It’s really about bringing back the war on drugs; re-criminalizing drug possession and wasting billions of dollars on prisons and jails with zero way to pay for it,” York said. “Quality-of-life issues are important, understandably. People want and deserve to feel safe in their own communities. But they also don’t want bad policies that are going to ruin lives and take us backward.”

Likely voters also support Proposition 32 to increase the California minimum wage to $18 per hour from the current rate of $16, with 52% inclined to vote “yes,” according to the poll, and 34% intending to vote “no.” The remaining voters polled are undecided.

The measure is backed by Joe Sanberg, a wealthy Los Angeles investor and anti-poverty activist, and comes as unions have won raises for individual industries, securing $25 an hour for healthcare workers and $20 an hour for fast-food workers.

Advertisement

Several cities including West Hollywood and Berkeley have moved ahead of the state minimum and already pay more than $18 an hour. Proponents of the measure say that pay should be more uniform across the state, while business groups oppose it over concerns that it will collapse companies that are already struggling financially.

On Proposition 33, a measure that could expand rent control, 40% of likely voters said they would support the initiative, while 34% are opposed. The measure would give local jurisdictions in California more power to regulate rent and would repeal a law that bans localities from capping prices on some properties.

The measure is sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a Los Angeles nonprofit that has backed similar rent control initiatives in the past, and is opposed by the real estate industry, which warns it could cause developers to build less — a problem that could worsen California’s housing crisis.

Ten measures in total will be on the November ballot. DiCamillo said that with a high-stakes presidential election, political excitement could trickle down and draw record attention to propositions that could significantly change California policy.

“I’m expecting a big turnout, and usually that is beneficial to the issues lower down on the ballot,” he said.

Advertisement

Times staff writers Anabel Sosa and Andrew Khouri contributed to this report.

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