Politics
Opposition concedes that Newsom likely to eke out a win on Proposition 1 in California
Gov. Gavin Newsom brimmed with confidence about Proposition 1 in January as he sat in a Costa Mesa Motel 6 room that was converted into housing for homeless veterans.
“I think it’s going to win overwhelmingly,” the governor said in an interview with The Times. “Period. Full stop.”
Nearly two months later, Newsom’s cockiness appears misplaced.
Despite millions spent by his campaign, Newsom’s ballot proposal to increase care for drug addiction and fund more treatment beds has held only a narrow lead since the March 5 primary. Still too close to officially call more than a week after the election, preliminary tallies from the California secretary of state showed Proposition 1 ahead by less than a percentage point.
Even with that uncertainty, the meagerly funded opposition campaign conceded Tuesday morning that the measure was “almost certain” to pass.
“We almost took down the bear, but it looks like we will fall short,” the Californians Against Prop 1 campaign said in a statement.
Newsom’s campaign said it was “optimistic” about the outcome, but there are still ballots to be tallied. More than 1.5 million ballots remain uncounted statewide in an election expected to exceed 7.5 million votes in all, which could be one of the lowest turnouts in state history.
The Associated Press, which member news organizations rely on to read results and call elections, said in a statement that “the race could flip if ‘No’ does just 1.5 percentage points better among the outstanding votes.”
“AP has determined that is too much uncertainty to make a call at this time as results across the state are uneven.”
Pollsters say Proposition 1 — and most Democratic candidates — underperformed on election day because of lower than expected voter turnout that inflated the Republican share of the electorate. Election returns showed inland counties and parts of Southern California opposed the measure, while a majority of voters in Los Angeles and the Bay Area backed the plan.
“It was the angry versus the apathetic,” said Jim DeBoo, a consultant for Proposition 1. “Republicans are angry and they showed up.”
Though Newsom’s proposal received rare bipartisan support from Central Valley Republicans and San Francisco Democrats in the state Legislature, that political harmony didn’t extend to voters. The measure was criticized by civil rights groups on the left who were concerned about the repercussions of funding secure mental health facilities and his GOP opponents on the right who scoffed at the estimated $14-billion price tag amid a massive state budget deficit.
Proposition 1 would approve a new $6.4-billion bond to support 10,000 treatment and housing beds and reconfigure a 20-year-old tax for mental health services to also fund services for drug addiction. The plan is essential to Newsom’s strategy to address California’s homelesness crisis, a persistent obstacle for the state and political vulnerability for the Democratic governor.
Under mounting pressure to clean up encampments and get people into treatment, the governor has adopted a series of policy positions that depart from the liberal model of voluntary treatment to a more moderate approach of compelling people with severe mental illness and substance disorders into care.
Newsom signed a law last year to expand conservatorship to allow courts to appoint someone to make decisions for people struggling with severe substance use disorders. Counties began implementing his CARE Court program, which gives families an opportunity to request that courts require treatment for a loved one, last year.
The lack of treatment beds and places to house an influx of patients has been the primary argument against Newsom’s strategy. In her state of the city address days after the election, San Francisco Mayor London Breed touted that the passage of Proposition 1 would provide “a real opportunity to add hundreds more” treatment beds.
“So when the state opens the pipeline for new beds, San Francisco is ready and first in line,” Breed said.
Civil rights organizations and advocates for the disabled community opposed the measure and raised alarm bells in 2023 over a last-minute change to Proposition 1 that allows counties to use the bond money for “locked facilities,” where patients cannot voluntarily leave.
American Civil Liberties Unions in California and League of Women Voters of California urged voters to reject the measure, arguing that community mental health services are more effective than institutionalization.
“I think the governor and mayors often just want the encampments to disappear by any means necessary,” said Katherine Wolf, a doctoral student in society and environment at UC Berkeley, who said she voted against Proposition 1.
Wolf said she believes that community programs that provide stability to some mentally ill Californians will lose funding if money shifts to involuntary treatment. Similar to the ACLU and League of Women Voters, she also opposes forcing people into care.
“For them to sneak it in at the last minute after promising all summer that the bond would only be used for community-based voluntary unlocked treatment, I think is really underhanded and I think they did it specifically to avoid objections from the groups and people who they knew would object,” Wolf said.
Newsom cast the measure as an opportunity to get more people off the streets and into treatment. The measure, he argued in an interview with The Times, addressed the most important issues to voters — crime, homelessness, substance abuse and mental health — and “90% of the boxes that unite the vast overwhelming majority of Californians.”
Early polls seemed to suggest Newsom was right. A survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California in November, for example, suggested that two-thirds of likely voters approved of Proposition 1, 30% opposed and a mere 2% remained undecided.
But despite the governor’s bullish stance publicly, behind the scenes his campaign predicted the final result would end up tighter than polls showed and sought to lower expectations in the months and weeks before the election.
Support dropped to 59% among likely voters in a second PPIC poll conducted in February.
By the end of the month, the measure teetered with only 50% support in a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times. More than one-third of voters were opposed and 16% remained undecided. A large majority of Republican voters who responded to the Berkeley poll opposed the measure, raising concerns about how Proposition 1 would fare in an election with higher GOP turnout.
In a memo sent days before the election, David Binder, a pollster hired by Newsom’s campaign, suggested the PPIC polling was optimistic given low turnout and underperformance among Democrats.
“It is likely that even as yes-on-Proposition 1 may have polled in the low 60s when first introduced in 2023 that the yes vote could end up in the low 50s, given the history of erosion in support for bond and tax measures and the specifics regarding low turnout and disproportionate Republican turnout that California is experiencing for the March 5th election,” Binder wrote.
Mark DiCamillo, director of the IGS poll, said that despite the bipartisan support at the state Capitol, it should come as no surprise that Republican voters didn’t rally behind Proposition 1.
Republicans tend to oppose big-ticket ballot measures. Voters of all political affiliations who remain undecided in the final days before an election also often end up voting against a measure if their mind isn’t made up, he said. Complicated measures, such as Proposition 1, can easily confuse voters as well.
“One other difference that probably worked against it in this election was that the turnout was so low that you basically have three times as many older voters, who tend to be more conservative than younger voters,” DiCamillo said.
Newsom’s campaign said the governor intentionally chose to place the measure on the March ballot because they believed it could “withstand a more conservative electorate and still pass on election day” and due to the urgency of the issue.
Anthony York, a spokesperson for the campaign, said — and pollsters agreed — that the measure would have performed better if placed on the November ballot where Democratic turnout is projected to be higher.
But Democrats in Sacramento are also eyeing several other bond measures on housing, schools and climate to put before voters in November that could total tens of billions of dollars. With the state struggling to offset a budget deficit of at least $37.9 billion, bonds act as a method of sorts for government to take out loans paid back over time to fund big-ticket policies.
Voting on Proposition 1 in March instead of November was a strategic decision that allowed Newsom to avoid a crowded ballot in the fall, said Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc.
“Voters do, if you accumulate ballot measures that have spending, start to kind of collectively go ‘no’ on them,” Mitchell said.
Times staff writer Hannah Wiley contributed to this report.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Justice Department is turning to former Trump attorney Joeseph diGenova to spearhead a probe into ex-CIA Director John Brennan and others over the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, as the department reshuffles leadership of the sprawling inquiry.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has tapped diGenova to serve as counsel overseeing the matter, according to a New York Times report, putting a former Trump attorney in a key role in the high-profile probe. A federal grand jury seated in Miami has been impaneled since late last year.
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
DOJ ACTIVELY PREPARING TO ISSUE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS RELATING TO JOHN BRENNAN INVESTIGATION: SOURCES
Joseph diGenova represented President Donald Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images)
DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who represented Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, has repeatedly accused Brennan of misconduct tied to the origins of the Russia probe—allegations that have not resulted in criminal charges.
He also said in a 2018 appearance on Fox News that Brennan colluded with the FBI and DOJ to frame Trump.
The origins of the Russia investigation have been the subject of ongoing scrutiny by Trump allies, who have argued that intelligence and law enforcement officials improperly launched the probe.
BRENNAN INDICTMENT COULD COME WITHIN ‘WEEKS’ AS PROSECUTORS REQUEST OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTS
Joseph diGenova has previously said that ex-CIA chief John Brennan colluded with the FBI and DOJ to frame Trump. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images)
DiGenova’s appointment follows the ouster of Maria Medetis Long, a national security prosecutor in the South Florida U.S. attorney’s office. She had been overseeing the inquiry, including a false statements probe related to Brennan and broader conspiracy-related investigations.
As the investigation continues, federal investigators have issued subpoenas seeking information related to intelligence assessments of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
John Brennan has denied any wrongdoing related to the Russia investigation. (William B. Plowman/NBC/NBC NewsWire via Getty Images; Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Brennan has previously denied wrongdoing related to the Russia investigation and has defended the intelligence community’s assessment that Moscow interfered in the 2016 election.
Politics
Supreme Court weighs phone searches to find criminals amid complaints of ‘digital dragnets’
WASHINGTON — A man carrying a gun and a cellphone entered a federal credit union in a small town in central Virginia in May 2019 and demanded cash.
He left with $195,000 in a bag and no clue to his identity. But his smartphone was keeping track of him.
What happened next could yield a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court on the 4th Amendment and its restrictions against “unreasonable searches.” The court will hear arguments on the issue on April 27.
Typically, police use tips or leads to find suspects, then seek a search warrant from a judge to enter a house or other private area to seize the evidence that can prove a crime.
Civil libertarians say the new “digital dragnets” work in reverse.
“It’s grab the data and search first. Suspicion later. That’s opposite of how our system has worked, and it’s really dangerous,” said Jake Laperruque, an attorney for the Center for Democracy & Technology.
But these new data scans can be effective in finding criminals.
Lacking leads in the Virginia bank robbery, a police detective turned to what one judge in the case called a “groundbreaking investigative tool … enabling the relentless collection of eerily precise location data.”
Cellphones can be tracked through towers, and Google stored this location history data for hundreds of millions of users. The detective sent Google a demand for information known as a “geofence warrant,” referring to a virtual fence around a particular geographic area at a specific time.
The officer sought phones that were within 150 yards of the bank during the hour of the robbery. He used that data to locate Okello Chatrie, then obtained a search warrant of his home where the cash and the holdup notes were found.
Chatrie entered a conditional guilty plea, but the Supreme Court will hear his appeal next week.
The justices agreed to decide whether geofence warrants violate the 4th Amendment.
The outcome may go beyond location tracking. At issue more broadly is the legal status of the vast amount of privately stored data that can be easily scanned.
This may include words or phrases found in Google searches or in emails. For example, investigators may want to know who searched for a particular address in the weeks before an arson or a murder took place there or who searched for information on making a particular type of bomb.
Judges are deeply divided on how this fits with the 4th Amendment.
Two years ago, the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled “geofence warrants are general warrants categorically prohibited by the 4th Amendment.”
Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s liberals in a 4th Amendment privacy case in 2018.
(Alex Wong / Getty Images)
Historians of the 4th Amendment say the constitutional ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures” arose from the anger in the American colonies over British officers using general warrants to search homes and stores even when they had no reason to suspect any particular person of wrongdoing.
The National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers relies on that contention in opposing geofence warrants.
Its lawyers argued the government obtained Chatrie’s “private location information … with an unconstitutional general warrant that compelled Google to conduct a fishing expedition through millions of Google accounts, without any basis for believing that any one of them would contain incriminating evidence.”
Meanwhile, the more liberal 4th Circuit in Virginia divided 7-7 to reject Chatrie’s appeal. Several judges explained the law was not clear, and the police officer had done nothing wrong.
“There was no search here,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote in a concurring opinion that defended the use of this tracking data.
He pointed to Supreme Court rulings in the 1970s declaring that check records held by a bank or dialing records held by a phone company were not private and could be searched by investigators without a warrant.
Chatrie had agreed to having his location records held by Google. If financial records for several months are not private, the judge wrote, “surely this request for a two-hour snapshot of one’s public movements” is not private either.
Google changed its policy in 2023 and no longer stores location history data for all of its users. But cellphone carriers continue to receive warrants that seek tracking data.
Wilkinson, a prominent conservative from the Reagan era, also argued it would be a mistake for the courts to “frustrate law enforcement’s ability to keep pace with tech-savvy criminals” or cause “more cold cases to go unsolved. Think of a murder where the culprit leaves behind his encrypted phone and nothing else. No fingerprints, no witnesses, no murder weapon. But because the killer allowed Google to track his location, a geofence warrant can crack the case,” he wrote.
Judges in Los Angeles upheld the use of a geofence warrant to find and convict two men for a robbery and murder in a bank parking lot in Paramount.
The victim, Adbadalla Thabet, collected cash from gas stations in Downey, Bellflower, Compton and Lynwood early in the morning before driving to the bank.
After he was robbed and shot, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s detective found video surveillance that showed he had been followed by two cars whose license plates could not be seen.
The detective then sought a geofence warrant from a Superior Court judge that asked Google for location data for six designated spots on the morning of the murder.
That led to the identification of Daniel Meza and Walter Meneses, who pleaded guilty to the crimes. A California Court of Appeal rejected their 4th Amendment claim in 2023, even though the judges said they had legal doubts about the “novelty of the particular surveillance technique at issue.”
The Supreme Court has also been split on how to apply the 4th Amendment to new types of surveillance.
By a 5-4 vote, the court in 2018 ruled the FBI should have obtained a search warrant before it required a cellphone company to turn over 127 days of records for Timothy Carpenter, a suspect in a series of store robberies in Michigan.
The data confirmed Carpenter was nearby when four of the stores were robbed.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, joined by four liberal justices, said this lengthy surveillance violated privacy rights protected by the 4th Amendment.
The “seismic shifts in technology” could permit total surveillance of the public, Roberts wrote, and “we decline to grant the state unrestricted access” to these databases.
But he described the Carpenter decision as “narrow” because it turned on the many weeks of surveillance data.
In dissent, four conservatives questioned how tracking someone’s driving violates their privacy. Surveillance cameras and license plate readers are commonly used by investigators and have rarely been challenged.
Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer relies on that argument in his defense of Chatrie’s conviction. “An individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements that anyone could see,” he wrote.
The justices will issue a decision by the end of June.
Politics
Trump renews bridge, power plant threat against Iran in push for deal, mocks ‘tough guy’ IRGC
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump mocked the Islamic Revolutionary Guard on Sunday morning for staking claim to a Strait of Hormuz “blockade” the U.S. military had already put in place.
“Iran recently announced that they were closing the Strait, which is strange, because our BLOCKADE has already closed it,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “They’re helping us without knowing, and they are the ones that lose with the closed passage, $500 Million Dollars a day! The United States loses nothing.
“In fact, many Ships are headed, right now, to the U.S., Texas, Louisiana, and Alaska, to load up, compliments of the IRGC, always wanting to be ‘the tough guy!’”
Trump declared Saturday’s IRGC fire was “a total violation” of the ceasefire.
“Iran decided to fire bullets yesterday in the Strait of Hormuz — A Total Violation of our Ceasefire Agreement!” his post began.
“Many of them were aimed at a French Ship, and a Freighter from the United Kingdom. That wasn’t nice, was it? My Representatives are going to Islamabad, Pakistan — They will be there tomorrow evening, for Negotiations.”
Trump remains hopeful about diplomacy, but is not ruling out a return to force, where he once warned about ending “civilation” in Iran as they know it.
“We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran,” Trump’s stern warning continued.
“NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!
“They’ll come down fast, they’ll come down easy and, if they don’t take the DEAL, it will be my Honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran, by other Presidents, for the last 47 years. IT’S TIME FOR THE IRAN KILLING MACHINE TO END!”
-
Arkansas4 minutes ago
Arkansas Lottery Cash 3, Cash 4 winning numbers for April 19, 2026
-
California10 minutes agoCalifornia couple charged with murder in death of toddler skip court
-
Colorado16 minutes agoUPDATE: Northbound Powers reopned after major crash
-
Connecticut22 minutes agoCT Lottery Cash 5, Play3 winning numbers for April 19, 2026
-
Delaware28 minutes agoMan speeds past leading runner in photo finish at Delaware Marathon
-
Florida34 minutes ago
Florida Lottery Fantasy 5, Cash Pop results for April 19, 2026
-
Georgia40 minutes ago
Gaudette & Patel Pitch Past No. 3 UNC, 5-2
-
Hawaii46 minutes agoA Deep Dive into Hawai‘i’s Shell Jewelry Industry – Hawaii Business Magazine
