Politics
Opinion: Steve Garvey's strange win is a loss for California election reform. Here's the solution
The Dodgers don’t usually get any intentional help from their archrivals, the Giants. But something that strange just happened in California’s primary: Former Dodgers great and current Republican U.S. Senate candidate Steve Garvey advanced to the general election along with Democratic Rep. Adam B. Schiff — after being elevated almost entirely by the other team. The former National League MVP’s long-shot bid for the Senate benefited from an estimated $35 million in television ads from a surprising source: Schiff and his allies.
Why did the Burbank Democrat spend a small fortune boosting Garvey’s name recognition and blanketing the airwaves with ads that touted the former first baseman’s conservative credentials? You might call it a squeeze play: Schiff wanted to keep his two closest Democratic competitors out of the fall race, and he succeeded. Garvey claimed the second-highest vote total in the top-two primary, while Democratic Reps. Katie Porter of Irvine and Barbara Lee of Oakland finished in third and fourth, leaving them out of the running.
This is a classic example of a problem that could be solved by ranked-choice voting, a tested, nonpartisan reform that discourages this sort of gamesmanship and more accurately represents what a majority of voters want.
Schiff’s skulduggery was unfortunate but totally rational under the current system. In California’s unusual “jungle” primary, every candidate runs in the same preliminary election, and the top two vote-getters move on to the general election regardless of party affiliation. Schiff seemed certain to claim one of the two spots from the beginning, but he faced a potentially competitive race in the fall against a progressive Democrat such as Porter or Lee.
So Schiff decided to try to choose an easier opponent. California Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1, and the state’s voters haven’t sent a Republican to the Senate in 35 years.
Schiff’s beneficence deserves much of the credit for ensuring what has become an all too common feature of California’s general elections: a statewide contest in which a Democrat will probably trounce a sacrificial Republican instead of facing real competition from within his own party. Garvey’s largely quiet campaign did not air television ads of its own, and his campaign appearances were few and far between. The Republican spent just $1.4 million through mid-February, a small fraction of what Schiff and his allies spent boosting him.
Porter decried the contest as “rigged” because of Schiff’s tactics, but her allies got up to similar trickery. They tried to elevate a more conservative Republican, perennial candidate Eric Early, as “way more dangerous than Steve Garvey.” Their evident hope was to peel enough votes away from Garvey to allow Porter to finish second.
Our politics need not be this underhanded. It would be easy to end this chicanery and ensure that the candidates with the widest and deepest support face off in the fall.
Ranked-choice voting, whose renaissance started in the Bay Area and is quickly spreading across the country, is the best tool for reflecting the wishes of voters in any race with more than two candidates. It allows voters to rank their chosen candidates — first, second, third and so on — and enables an instant runoff: If no one secures a majority of first-choice votes, the last-place candidate is eliminated and their votes awarded to their supporters’ next choice, a process repeated until one candidate gets more than 50%. This eliminates spoiler candidates, wasted votes for eliminated candidates, winners with relatively small pluralities, and duplicitous tactics like Schiff’s and Porter’s.
One option is for California to adopt a “final four” model such as the one being used successfully in Alaska. Instead of advancing just two candidates from the primary, the state admits the top four to the general election, which is then decided by ranked choice.
This allows multiple candidates of different ideological stripes within a party to run against one another without splitting the field, which is particularly important in an overwhelmingly blue state like California. It also helps ensure that both major parties have at least one candidate in the general election. That could have allowed Schiff, Garvey, Lee and Porter to all make their cases before a much larger and more representative November electorate.
Voters, meanwhile, would be able to choose their actual favorite from a wide field — along with their second and subsequent choices — without any fear of playing spoiler. The winner would be the candidate with the deepest and broadest support among all California voters. And the election would have a completely different vibe: Instead of ignoring his strongest Democratic opponents, Schiff would have had to compete to be their supporters’ second choice.
California has long been at the vanguard of electoral reforms that produce fairer results, and the top-two primary was an important innovation. But there’s no reason to stop there.
Ranked-choice voting would make the state’s elections even fairer. The Dodgers don’t get to decide which teams they play, and politicians shouldn’t be able to get away with it either.
Marcela Miranda-Caballero is the executive director of the California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition. David Daley is a senior fellow at FairVote and the author of “Unrigged: How Americans Are Battling Back to Save Democracy.”
Politics
Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
transcript
transcript
Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.
-
“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”
January 8, 2026
Politics
Trump calls for $1.5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s budget.
“After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday evening.
“This will allow us to build the “Dream Military” that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.”
The president said he came up with the number after tariff revenues created a surplus of cash. He claimed the levies were bringing in enough money to pay for both a major boost to the defense budget “easily,” pay down the national debt, which is over $38 trillion, and offer “a substantial dividend to moderate income patriots.”
SENATE SENDS $901B DEFENSE BILL TO TRUMP AFTER CLASHES OVER BOAT STRIKE, DC AIRSPACE
President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s record budget. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the increased budget would cost about $5 trillion from 2027 to 2035, or $5.7 trillion with interest. Tariff revenues, the group found, would cover about half the cost – $2.5 trillion or $3 trillion with interest.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in a major case Friday that will determine the legality of Trump’s sweeping tariff strategy.
CONGRESS UNVEILS $900B DEFENSE BILL TARGETING CHINA WITH TECH BANS, INVESTMENT CRACKDOWN, US TROOP PAY RAISE
This year the defense budget is expected to breach $1 trillion for the first time thanks to a $150 billion reconciliation bill Congress passed to boost the expected $900 billion defense spending legislation for fiscal year 2026. Congress has yet to pass a full-year defense budget for 2026.
Some Republicans have long called for a major increase to defense spending to bring the topline total to 5% of GDP, as the $1.5 trillion budget would do, up from the current 3.5%.
The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships. (Lockheed Martin via Reuters)
Trump has ramped up pressure on Europe to increase its national security spending to 5% of GDP – 3.5% on core military requirements and 1.5% on defense-related areas like cybersecurity and critical infrastructure.
Trump’s budget announcement came hours after defense stocks took a dip when he condemned the performance rates of major defense contractors. In a separate Truth Social post he announced he would not allow defense firms to buy back their own stocks, offer large salaries to executives or issue dividends to shareholders.
“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he said.
“Defense Companies are not producing our Great Military Equipment rapidly enough and, once produced, not maintaining it properly or quickly.”
U.S. Army soldiers stand near an armored military vehicle on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria’s northeastern Hasakeh province, bordering Turkey, on March 27, 2023. (Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images)
He said that executives would not be allowed to make above $5 million until they build new production plants.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Stock buybacks, dividends and executive compensation are generally governed by securities law, state corporate law and private contracts, and cannot be broadly restricted without congressional action.
An executive order the White House released Wednesday frames the restrictions as conditions on future defense contracts, rather than a blanket prohibition. The order directs the secretary of war to ensure that new contracts include provisions barring stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance or inadequate production, as determined by the Pentagon.
Politics
Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul how California’s education system is governed, calling for structural changes that he said would shift oversight of the Department of Education and redefine the role of the state’s elected schools chief.
The proposal, which is part of Newsom’s state budget plan that will be released Friday, would unify the policymaking State Board of Education with the department, which is responsible for carrying out those policies. The governor said the change would better align education efforts from early childhood through college.
“California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century,” Newsom said in a statement. “These critical reforms will bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and schools.”
Few details were provided about how the role of the state superintendent of public instruction would change, beyond a greater focus on fostering coordination and aligning education policy.
The changes would require approval from state lawmakers, who will be in the state Capitol on Thursday for Newsom’s last State of the State speech in his final year as governor.
The proposal would implement recommendations from a 2002 report by the state Legislature, titled “California’s Master Plan for Education,” which described the state’s K-12 governance as fragmented and “with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of the educational services offered to students.” Newsom’s office said similar concerns have been raised repeatedly since 1920 and were echoed again in a December 2025 report by research center Policy Analysis for California Education.
“The sobering reality of California’s education system is that too few schools can now provide the conditions in which the State can fairly ask students to learn to the highest standards, let alone prepare themselves to meet their future learning needs,” the Legislature’s 2002 report stated. Those most harmed are often low-income students and students of color, the report added.
“California’s education governance system is complex and too often creates challenges for school leaders,” Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said in a statement provided by Newsom’s office. “As responsibilities and demands on schools continue to increase, educators need governance systems that are designed to better support positive student outcomes.”
The current budget allocated $137.6 billion for education from transitional kindergarten through the 12th grade — the highest per-pupil funding level in state history — and Newsom’s office said his proposal is intended to ensure those investments translate into more consistent support and improved outcomes statewide.
“For decades the fragmented and inefficient structure overseeing our public education system has hindered our students’ ability to succeed and thrive,” Ted Lempert, president of advocacy group Children Now, said in a statement provided by the governor’s office. “Major reform is essential, and we’re thrilled that the Governor is tackling this issue to improve our kids’ education.”
-
Detroit, MI5 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology2 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX3 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health4 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska1 day agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Nebraska2 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Entertainment1 day agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios
-
Politics4 days agoDan Bongino officially leaves FBI deputy director role after less than a year, returns to ‘civilian life’