Politics
Proposition 32 was just rejected. In blue California, why did the minimum-wage boost fail?
Californians, who have historically supported efforts to raise the minimum wage, were not swayed this time around.
After two weeks of postelection uncertainty, Proposition 32, the initiative to increase the state’s minimum wage to $18 an hour, was defeated by a narrow margin.
The rejection was “a pretty poignant sign of the times in a state like California,” said John Kabateck, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, which had urged voters to vote no. “It is certainly sending a message that Californians across the political spectrum are fed up with higher costs and greater uncertainty on Main Street.”
Proposition 32 was declared defeated after falling just short, with 49.2% voting “yes.” The Associated Press called the race on Tuesday evening.
The outcome was the latest indication of a rightward shift in the reliably blue state, which saw a number of surprising results from the Nov. 5 election. Voters overwhelmingly supported a ballot measure to undo a decade of progressive criminal justice reform, and rejected an initiative that would have banned forced prison labor.
Opponents and economists said that by striking down the proposed minimum-wage increase, voters signaled that they were nervous about businesses raising prices to offset their added labor expenses. The prospect of paying more for consumer goods was especially unappealing after years of high inflation, which has led to a persistent feeling among many people that they’re on shaky financial footing.
“Arguments about the minimum wage are always very emotional,” said Till von Wachter, an economics professor at UCLA. “Economic issues are top of mind right now, and that can lead to a rejection of a higher minimum wage.”
Voters were closely divided on the proposition, which would have raised the minimum wage to $17 an hour immediately for larger employers and to $18 an hour starting in January. Smaller employers with 25 or fewer employees would have been required to do the same but at a slower rate: $17 an hour next year and $18 an hour in 2026.
The initiative received support in counties including Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and all nine that make up the San Francisco Bay Area. Higher-income counties were more likely to have voted yes, according to a Times review of voter results, although Orange and San Diego counties voted no.
California already has one of the highest minimum wages in the country, trailing just the District of Columbia and Washington. The state’s minimum wage has doubled since 2010, most recently increasing to $16 from $15.50 in January.
Many cities — including Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Santa Monica and Pasadena — have even higher minimums. Meanwhile the federal minimum wage has sat at $7.25 for 15 years.
As such, voters might have felt that another wage hike was unnecessary, said Chris Thornberg, an economist who founded Beacon Economics, a research and consulting firm in Los Angeles. The outcome was in part a reflection of the overall swing to the right nationwide, he said, and also about a sense of “fairness.”
“As you continue to push the minimum wage up, people are less empathetic,” he said. “The California public is at that point where they think this is just not fair to the rest of us.”
“Enough is enough. The state’s voters continue to support so-called progressive policies, but are drawing the line when it impacts their cost of living or quality of life.”
— Jot Condie, president and chief executive of the California Restaurant Assn.
In practice, the effects of raising the minimum wage on inflation and on unemployment are complex and hotly debated.
Supporters of Proposition 32 argued that increasing the minimum wage stimulates the economy, improves the standard of living for lower-income workers and reduces employee turnover. A new standard, they said, was necessary to cope with the state’s exorbitant cost of living.
The campaign estimated that more than 2 million California workers stood to benefit from the measure, which was spearheaded by millionaire investor and anti-poverty activist Joe Sanberg.
“The fight for higher wages and economic dignity for millions of California workers doesn’t end here — we’ll continue until every California worker earns enough to live and thrive,” Sanberg said in a statement Tuesday evening. “While today’s outcome was not what we expected, we are hopeful for the work ahead.”
Opponents said the measure was bad for consumers — and for workers. They worried companies would pass on the extra labor costs to customers through higher product prices, and would try to save money by laying off staff, slashing employee hours and replacing workers with automation.
“It was a very easy call to vote no on it,” said Bill Bender, 70, a restaurant operations consultant from San José. “It’s too much, too fast for the industry to absorb.”
California had a recent real-world case study in raising the minimum wage to consider, which may have factored into voters’ decision-making: In April, the state’s fast-food workers saw their pay jump to a minimum of $20 an hour, an increase established by Assembly Bill 1228.
Many cashiers, line and prep cooks, counter attendants and baristas saw as much as a 25% raise overnight thanks to the new law, which applies to California fast-food workers employed by any chain with more than 60 locations nationwide, and covers corporate-owned and franchised locations.
Even before it kicked in, fast-food giants including Chipotle, McDonald’s, Starbucks, Jack in the Box and Shake Shack warned that they were planning to raise menu prices as a result, leaving customers to eat the cost.
“Fast-food consumers are very frustrated by the price increases that they’re seeing,” said Jot Condie, president and chief executive of the California Restaurant Assn., which opposed Proposition 32. “They were just connecting the dots and saying, ‘This $18-an-hour minimum wage is going to increase prices across the board.’”
A McDonald’s in Azusa. The company warned it would raise prices after California’s fast-food minimum wage hike took effect in April.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
Michaela Mendelsohn operates six El Pollo Loco locations in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. She believed that raising the state’s minimum wage would have led to a jump in prices, but said she supported Proposition 32 because it would have narrowed the gap between what she and other fast-food operators are required to pay their employees and what non-fast-food companies pay.
Since the state moved to $20 an hour for fast-food workers, Mendelsohn said transactions at her six stores are down 5% to 8% from a year ago and she has trimmed total labor hours by 8% to 10%.
David Neumark, a UC Irvine economist and national expert on minimum wages and their economic effects, said he was surprised by the outcome and that it was hard to pinpoint a single factor for the measure’s defeat.
His research over the years has shown there’s an economic tradeoff in pushing up the minimum wage: Some lower-income workers benefit from increased pay, but overall jobs are reduced as employers cut back due to higher costs, which hurts the financial well-being of the working poor and those with fewer skills.
Although it’s a commonly accepted theory that a boost in the minimum wage could lead to job loss, von Wachter of UCLA said that isn’t always the case.
“The argument that higher wages lead to lower employment does not have a lot of evidence going for it,” he said. “Instead, in situations where employers have some market power, higher minimum wages can raise employment.”
California voters are heavily Democratic and a high minimum wage generally aligns with left-wing values, but voters on both sides of the aisle didn’t adhere to typical party-line trends when it came to Proposition 32.
Randy Jeffs, a Republican from Irvine, said he didn’t vote for a presidential candidate last week. But he did vote yes on Proposition 32 after calculating that a worker paid at the higher rate would still only make $37,440 a year on a full-time, 40-hour-a-week schedule.
“If prices rise a little to pay for an $18-an-hour minimum wage, so be it,” Jeffs, 70, said. “If the wealth is to be spread about, what better way than to those willing to learn [and] work?”
But in the end, most voters decided that “enough is enough,” Condie said.
“The state’s voters continue to support so-called progressive policies,” he said, “but are drawing the line when it impacts their cost of living or quality of life.”
new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry
transcript
transcript
Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.
-
“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”
By Jackeline Luna
February 27, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accused Everett, Washington, Mayor Cassie Franklin of escalating tensions with federal authorities after she issued a directive limiting immigration enforcement in the city.
Franklin issued a mayoral directive this week establishing citywide protocols for staff, including law enforcement, that restrict federal immigration agents from entering non-public areas of city buildings without a judicial warrant.
“We’ve heard directly from residents who are afraid to leave their houses because of the concerning immigration activity happening locally and across our country. It’s heartbreaking to see the impacts on Everett families and businesses,” Franklin said in a statement.
“With this directive, we are setting clear protocols, protecting access to services and reinforcing our commitment to serving the entire community.”
ICE blasted the directive Friday, writing on X it “escalates tension and directs city law enforcement to intervene with ICE operations at their own discretion,” thereby “putting everyone at greater risk.”
Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new citywide immigration enforcement protocols are intended to protect residents and ensure access to services, while ICE accused her of escalating tensions with federal authorities. (Google Maps)
ICE said Franklin was directing city workers to “impede ICE operations and expose the location of ICE officers and agents.”
“Working AGAINST ICE forces federal teams into the community searching for criminal illegal aliens released from local jails — INCREASING THE FEDERAL PRESENCE,” the agency said. “Working with ICE reduces the federal presence.”
“If Mayor Franklin wanted to protect the people she claims to serve, she’d empower the city police with an ICE 287g partnership — instead she serves criminal illegal aliens,” ICE added.
DHS, WHITE HOUSE MOCK CHICAGO’S LAWSUIT OVER ICE: ‘MIRACULOUSLY REDISCOVERED THE 10TH AMENDMENT’
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement blasted Everett’s mayor after she issued a directive restricting federal agents from accessing non-public areas of city facilities without a warrant. (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
During a city council meeting where she announced the policy, Franklin said “federal immigration enforcement is causing real fear for Everett residents.”
“It’s been heartbreaking to see the racial profiling that’s having an impact on Everett families and businesses,” she said. “We know there are kids staying home from school, people not going to work or people not going about their day, dining out or shopping for essentials.”
The mayor’s directive covers four main areas, including restricting federal immigration agents from accessing non-public areas of city buildings without a warrant, requiring immediate reporting of enforcement activity on city property and mandating clear signage to enforce access limits.
BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE
Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new directive is aimed at protecting residents amid heightened immigration enforcement activity. (iStock)
It also calls for an internal policy review and staff training, including the creation of an Interdepartmental Response Team and updated immigration enforcement protocols to ensure compliance with state law.
Franklin directed city staff to expand partnerships with community leaders, advocacy groups and regional governments to coordinate responses to immigration enforcement, while promoting immigrant-owned businesses and providing workplace protections and “know your rights” resources.
The mayor also reaffirmed a commitment to “constitutional policing and best practices,” stating that the police department will comply with state law barring participation in civil immigration enforcement. The directive outlines protocols for documenting interactions with federal officials, reviewing records requests and strengthening privacy safeguards and technology audits.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin issued a directive limiting federal immigration enforcement in city facilities. (iStock)
“We want everyone in the city of Everett to feel safe calling 911 when they need help and to know that Everett Police will not ask about your immigration status,” Franklin said during the council meeting. ”I also expect our officers to intervene if it’s safe to do so to protect our residents when they witness federal officers using unnecessary force.”
Fox News Digital has reached out to Mayor Franklin’s office and ICE for comment.
Related Article
The morning after Netflix clinched its deal to buy Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison assembled a war room of trusted advisors, including his billionaire father, Larry Ellison.
Furious at Warner Bros. Discovery Chief David Zaslav for ending the auction, the Ellisons and their team began plotting their comeback on that crisp December day.
To rattle Warner Bros. Discovery and its investors, they launched a three-front campaign: a lawsuit, a hostile takeover bid and direct lobbying of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress.
“There was a master battle plan — and it was extremely disciplined,” said one auction insider who was not authorized to comment publicly.
Netflix stunned the industry late Thursday by pulling out of the bidding, clearing the way for Paramount to claim the company that owns HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and the Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank. The deal was valued at more than $111 billion.
The streaming giant’s reversal came just hours after co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos met with Atty Gen. Pam Bondi and a deputy at the White House. It was a cordial session, but the Trump officials told Sarandos that his deal was facing significant hurdles in Washington, according to a person close to the administration who was not authorized to comment publicly.
Even before that meeting, the tide had turned for Paramount in a swell of power, politics and brinkmanship.
“Netflix played their cards well; however, Paramount played their cards perfectly,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media Co. “They did exactly what they had to do and when they had to do it — which was at the very last moment.”
Key to victory was Larry Ellison, his $200-billion fortune and his connections to President Trump and congressional Republicans.
Paramount also hired Trump’s former antitrust chief, attorney Makan Delrahim, to quarterback the firm’s legal and regulatory action.
Republicans during a Senate hearing this month piled onto Sarandos with complaints about potential monopolistic practices and “woke” programming.
David Ellison skipped that hearing. This week, however, he attended Trump’s State of the Union address in the Capitol chambers, a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The two men posed, grinning and giving a thumbs-up, for a photo that was posted to Graham’s X account.
David Ellison, the chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance Corp., walks through Statuary Hall to the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026.
(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)
On Friday, Netflix said it had received a $2.8-billion payment — a termination fee Paramount agreed to pay to send Netflix on its way.
Long before David Ellison and his family acquired Paramount and CBS last summer, the 43-year-old tech scion and aircraft pilot already had his sights set on Warner Bros. Discovery.
Paramount’s assets, including MTV, Nickelodeon and the Melrose Avenue movie studio, have been fading. Ellison recognized he needed the more robust company — Warner Bros. Discovery — to achieve his ambitions.
“From the very beginning, our pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery has been guided by a clear purpose: to honor the legacy of two iconic companies while accelerating our vision of building a next-generation media and entertainment company,” David Ellison said in a Friday statement. “We couldn’t be more excited for what’s ahead.”
Warner’s chief, Zaslav, who had initially opposed the Paramount bid, added: “We look forward to working with Paramount to complete this historic transaction.”
Netflix, in a separate statement, said it was unwilling to go beyond its $82.7-billion proposal that Warner board members accepted Dec. 4.
“We believe we would have been strong stewards of Warner Bros.’ iconic brands, and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs,” Sarandos and co-Chief Executive Greg Peters said in a statement.
“But this transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” the Netflix chiefs said.
Netflix may have miscalculated the Ellison family’s determination when it agreed Feb. 16 to allow Paramount back into the bidding.
The Los Gatos, Calif.-based company already had prevailed in the auction, and had an agreement in hand. Its next step was a shareholder vote.
“They didn’t need to let Paramount back in, but there was a lot of pressure on them to make sure the process wouldn’t be challenged,” Miller said.
In addition, Netflix’s stock had also been pummeled — the company had lost a quarter of its value — since investors learned the company was making a Warner run.
Upon news that Netflix had withdrawn, its shares soared Friday nearly 14% to $96.24.
Netflix Chief Executive Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House on Feb. 26, 2026.
(Andrew Leyden / Getty Images)
Invited back into the auction room, Paramount unveiled a much stronger proposal than the one it submitted in December.
The elder Ellison had pledged to personally guarantee the deal, including $45.7 billion in equity required to close the transaction. And if bankers became worried that Paramount was too leveraged, the tech mogul agreed to put in more money in order to secure the bank financing.
That promise assuaged Warner Bros. Discovery board members who had fretted for weeks that they weren’t sure Ellison would sign on the dotted line, according to two people close to the auction who were not authorized to comment.
Paramount’s pressure campaign had been relentless, first winning over theater owners, who expressed alarm over Netflix’s business model that encourages consumers to watch movies in their homes.
During the last two weeks, Sarandos got dragged into two ugly controversies.
First, famed filmmaker James Cameron endorsed Paramount, saying a Netflix takeover would lead to massive job losses in the entertainment industry, which is already reeling from a production slowdown in Southern California that has disrupted the lives of thousands of film industry workers.
Then, a week ago, Trump took aim at Netflix board member Susan Rice, a former high-level Obama and Biden administration official. In a social media post, Trump called Rice a “no talent … political hack,” and said that Netflix must fire her or “pay the consequences.”
The threat underscored the dicey environment for Netflix.
Additionally, Paramount had sowed doubts about Netflix among lawmakers, regulators, Warner investors and ultimately the Warner board.
Paramount assured Warner board members that it had a clear path to win regulatory approval so the deal would quickly be finalized. In a show of confidence, Delrahim filed to win the Justice Department’s blessing in December — even though Paramount didn’t have a deal.
This month, a deadline for the Justice Department to raise issues with Paramount’s proposed Warner takeover passed without comment from the Trump regulators.
“Analysts believe the deal is likely to close,” TD Cowen analysts said in a Friday report. “While Paramount-WBD does present material antitrust risks (higher pay TV prices, lower pay for TV/movie workers), analysts also see a key pro-competitive effect: improved competition in streaming, with Paramount+ and HBO Max representing a materially stronger counterweight to #1 Netflix.”
Throughout the battle, David Ellison relied on support from his father, attorney Delrahim, and three key board members: Oracle Executive Vice Chair Safra A. Catz; RedBird Capital Partners founder Gerry Cardinale; and Justin Hamill, managing director of tech investment firm Silver Lake.
In the final days, David Ellison led an effort to flip Warner board members who had firmly supported Netflix. With Paramount’s improved offer, several began leaning toward the Paramount deal.
On Tuesday, Warner announced that Paramount’s deal was promising.
On Thursday, Warner’s board determined Paramount’s deal had topped Netflix. That’s when Netflix surrendered.
“Paramount had a fulsome, 360-degree approach,” Miller said. “They approached it financially. … They understood the regulatory environment here and abroad in the EU. And they had a game plan for every aspect.”
On Friday, Paramount shares rose 21% to $13.51.
It was a reversal of fortunes for David Ellison, who appeared on CNBC just three days after that war room meeting in December.
“We put the company in play,” David Ellison told the CNBC anchor that day. “We’re really here to finish what we started.”
Times staff writer Ana Cabellos and Business Editor Richard Verrier contributed to this report.
Missouri Lottery Mega Millions, Pick 3 winning numbers for Feb. 27, 2026
Montana cowboys help build trauma ranch for Israeli soldiers
How to Watch No. 12 Nebraska Basketball at USC with Preview, Breakdown, TV Channel
Nye County Sheriff urges caution after deadly month on rural Nevada roads
Sen. Denise Ricciardi & Jeff Rogers: Stopping super speeders can save lives in New Hampshire
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Indiana Members Credit Union announced as new anchor tenant at Bottleworks District
ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement
Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?
How the federal government is painting immigrants as criminals on social media
Where Iran’s ballistic missiles can reach — and how close they are to the US
Has India’s influence in Afghanistan grown under the Taliban?
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO2 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology7 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology7 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics7 days agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT