A new poll just days before the Nov. 5 election shows Kamala Harris easily winning her home state of California, but with less support than expected — a worrying sign for the Vice President’s chances in more critical battleground states that could decide the race that is tied nationally.

In its last poll before the election, the nonpartisan Berkeley Institute of Government Studies found 57% support for Harris and 35% support for Republican former President Donald Trump among California voters.

Yet that strong margin is lower than President Joe Biden’s performance in California in 2020. Four years ago, Biden handily clinched the Golden State with 63.5% of votes cast to Trump’s 34.3%.

This year, there’s less enthusiasm for Harris among Latino and Asian American voters, according to the poll. That’s not enough to threaten the Vice President’s chances of winning California’s 54 electoral college votes. However, that could spell trouble for Harris nationally on Election Day in what is broadly considered a razor-thin race.

“Vice President Harris is in a strong position in California, with roughly equal levels of support among its White, Latino and Asian American voters, and very high support among the state’s Black voters,” Eric Schickler, co-director of the polling institute, said in a news release. “At the same time, her lower vote margins among Latino and Asian Americans compared to what Biden received in 2020 speak to why the broader race across the country is likely to be so close.”

In late October, the poll surveyed about 4,300 California voters online in English and Spanish that represent the state electorate. The margin of error was roughly two percentage points. It was paid for in part by the Los Angeles Times.

In 2020, about 75% of Latino and Asian American voters in California supported Biden, according to exit polls cited by the pollsters. Now, that’s dropped to 57% for Latino voters and 56% among Asian American voters, the poll says. Overall, that decline is somewhat offset by strong support by Black voters and college-educated white voters, the pollsters said.

The poll captures Harris’ “vulnerabilities” within swing states such as Pennsylvania and Georgia, said David McCuan,  professor of political science at Sonoma State University. In the suburbs of Atlanta, for instance, a fast-growing population of Asian Americans could help determine which way Georgia swings on Election Day.

“That’s because this election is still won on the margins–just not in California,” he said.

Elsewhere, the poll found strong support for state Proposition 36, which would toughen criminal penalties for repeated drug possession and shoplifting, with 60% of respondents supporting the measure and 25% opposed, suggesting that the divisive measure — whose chief supporters include San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan — will cruise to victory on Election Day.

Consequential measures on rent control and minimum wage hikes appear to be closer, the poll says.

Proposition 32 would raise the state’s minimum wage to $17 or $18, depending on a business’ size. About 47% support the measure, but opposition has grown modestly this fall, the poll says. Now, about 39% oppose it, up from 36% in September.

Opposition is mounting against Proposition 33, which would expand local governments’ ability to enact rent control, with 45% of those surveyed against the plan, an increase of nine percentage points from late September. About 35% support it.

Originally Published: November 1, 2024 at 11:30 AM PDT

Claims that former President Donald Trump does not appear on the first page of the presidential candidates list on voting machines in California, with supporters having to click “more” to find his name, have gone viral on social media.

The allegation originated with an anonymous X account, but has since been shared by House Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, a close Trump ally, who branded the situation “ridiculous.”

Election integrity has been a major issue following the 2020 presidential election, which Trump continues to insist he won despite this claim being repeatedly rejected in court and by independent election experts. A recent study from the Brookings Institute think tank concluded the share of fraudulent votes cast in elections over the past 25 years was “minuscule.”

On October 30, an anonymous X account with the user name ‘Darth Caul’ shared what they claimed was the screen from an electronic voting machine in California, which didn’t list Trump in the top four options for the presidential election. Instead, the names seen were that of the Democratic nominees, Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate Tim Walz, independent candidate and Trump supporter Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who partially suspended his campaign, Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver, and the Green Party’s Jill Stein.

The X user wrote: “If you wanted to vote [red] you had to click an extra button to even select the candidate on the Republican ticket.” The post went viral on X receiving over 9,600 reposts and 6.6 million views.

The post was shared by Georgia Representative Greene, who added: “In California, Trump/Vance is not on the first page of the ballot, but RFK still is even though he dropped out months ago!!”

“CA voters have to click to move on to multiple pages to vote for Trump. This is ridiculous!!”

Kennedy Jr. remains on the ballot in California and 32 other states even as he suspended his campaign in August and endorsed Trump. He said he would withdraw his candidacy in swing and safe Republican-leaning states.

X user ‘American AF,’ who describes themselves as part of Trump’s MAGA movement, also shared the photograph, commenting: “Donald Trump’s name doesn’t appear on the first screen as an option, on voting machines in California. You have to click ‘more’ options to be able to vote for him.” This post accumulated 23,000 reposts and 12.1 million views on the platform.

However, it also received a community note from fellow X users, noting: “In California, the order of the candidates is randomized, and rotated throughout districts.”

Links to other California voting slips shared on X, which had Trump listed among the top candidates, were included in the community note.

According to the website of California Secretary of State Shirly Weber, who is responsible for overseeing elections in the Golden State, the ballot order is determined by letters being selected at random.

The website states: “On the 82nd day before an election, the Secretary of State conducts a randomized drawing of letters of the alphabet pursuant to California Elections Code section 13112.

“The resulting order of letters constitutes the ‘randomized alphabet’ to be used for determining the order of candidates’ names on the ballot.”

Newsweek contacted the office of Secretary of State Shirly Weber, along with the X accounts ‘Darth Carl’ and ‘American AF,’ for comment on Friday outside of regular office hours. Contact was made via online inquiry sheet, email and X direct message respectively.

An analysis of recent polling by the election website FiveThirtyEight, published on Thursday, gave Harris a 1.2-point lead (rounded) over Trump nationwide with 47.9 percent of the vote against 46.8 percent.

However, due to the Electoral College system, a candidate can get the most votes but not win overall, as happened to Hillary Clinton in 2016. Overall, FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a 53 percent chance of victory against 47 percent for Harris.

In better news for the Democratic candidate, a recent analysis based on artificial intelligence, conducted by Bonus Code Bets, concluded that Harris is on track for a slim victory with 276 Electoral College votes against 262 for her Republican opponent.

In 2023, California approved the Climate Accountability Package, a pair of bills aimed at creating climate reporting requirements. Reporting is set to begin in 2026 for data collected during 2025. Companies need to determine now if they are required to report and establish the processes to collect the data. However, delays in drafting the standards and ambiguous language are making it difficult for businesses to determine if they qualify.

The Rise of Climate Reporting

California’s climate reporting regulation is part of a global movement to require companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, climate policies, and to evaluate climate risks. Driven by the net zero 2050 goal of the Paris Agreement, jurisdictions around the world are looking to reduce GHG emissions.

The European Union has been leading the way with the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. Initially adopted in 2022, the CSRD requires climate and environmental, social, and governance reporting by most companies that operate within the EU. Reporting for large companies began in 2024. Reporting for non-EU companies and small and medium-sized enterprises has been delayed to 2026.

In the U.S., the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted a Climate-Risk Disclosure Rule in early 2024, only to delay implementation while it faced legal challenges. California and other states are moving forward with their own reporting requirements.

California’s Climate Accountability Package established the broad parameters for the reporting standards. The responsibility of drafting specific regulations and implementing the reporting standards was delegated to the California Air Resources Board. CARB was initially given until January 1, 2025 to draft the rules and processes. In September, the Legislature extended the deadline by six months to July 1.

The original legislation states that CARB shall develop and adopt regulations requiring for the reporting entity’s prior fiscal year.” Meaning, while the reporting does not take place until 2026, the data is from 2025. Businesses must determine before January 1, 2025 if they qualify as a reporting entity so they can begin collecting the required information.

Reporting requirements are divided into two categories, based on the total annual revenue of the company. Unlike the SEC, the California reporting requirements apply to both publicly traded and privately held companies. Only U.S. companies will have to report.

Reporting Entities

The highest level of reporting is required of large companies. Senate Bill 253 required companies who do business in California and have an excess of $1 billion in revenue, defined as “reporting entities”, to submit an annual report for Scope 1 and Scope 2 starting in 2026. Scope 3 reporting will begin in 2027.

Generally, Scope 1 GHG emissions are those that come directly from the company. Scope 2 are indirect GHG emissions from the company’s power source. Scope 3 are GHG emissions from the value chain, both from suppliers and consumers.

Scope 3 has been highly debated as it is considered by the business community as being overly burdensome. When the SEC implemented their rule, they chose to not require Scope 3. The EU requires it.

Covered Entities

Senate Bill 261 required companies who do business in California and an excess of $500 million in revenue, defined as “covered entities”, to submit a biennial climate-related financial risk report.

Climate risk is defined as “material risk of harm to immediate and long-term financial outcomes due to physical and transition risks, including, but not limited to, risks to corporate operations, provision of goods and services, supply chains, employee health and safety, capital and financial investments, institutional investments, financial standing of loan recipients and borrowers, shareholder value, consumer demand, and financial markets and economic health.”

This is a much lower requirement as it does not include any level of GHG emission reporting.

What Classifies As “Doing Business in California”?

In the development and interpretation of law, words matter. Codes, ordinances, laws, and regulations typically begin with a list of definitions of key terms. Frequently, those definitions are prefaced with the phrase “for purposes of this section.” This allows lawmakers to define a term for limited use in that section of the law preventing new legislation from negatively impacting established law. Definitions bring clarity, allowing those subjected to the law, regulators, attorneys, and judges to know the exact intent of the lawmakers.

In the Climate Accountability Package, the phrases “covered entity” and “reporting entity” are both defined in their respective sections. The only notable distinction between the definitions is the annual revenue threshold. Both include the phrase “that does business in California.”

While the dollar amount thresholds are clear, there is a question as to what classifies as “doing business” in California. The definition varies by section of the state code and by state agency. The Climate Accountability Package amended the state’s Health and Safety Code, that does not have a definition of doing business.

Presumably, CARB will provide a clear definition when they release the standards in July. However, companies will need to determine by January 1 if they need to collect data. In the interim, there are two key definitions that help provide some guidance.

California Corporations Code

Section 191 (a) of the California Corporations Code gives a definition of “entering into repeated and successive transactions of its business in this state, other than interstate or foreign commerce.” However, that definition is for the phrase “transact intrastate business” and is only for “the purposes of Chapter 21”, requiring registration with the Secretary of State.

Notably, “a foreign corporation shall not be considered to be transacting intrastate business merely because its subsidiary transacts intrastate business.” This leaves raises a question as to if a subsidiary can trigger reporting by the parent company. The 2024 amendment clarified that a subsidiary does not have to file separate from the parent company, but did not address this question.

California Revenue and Taxation Code

Article 1, Section 23101(a) of the California Revenue and Taxation Code gives a definition of “doing business.” The California Franchise Tax Board interprets the definition to mean meeting one of five conditions. The board updates the dollar thresholds annually. A company is considered doing business in California if

1. The company is “actively engaging in any transaction for the purpose of financial or pecuniary gain or profit”;
2. The company is “organized or commercially domiciled” in the state;
3. The company has annual sales in California exceed the lower of $711,538 or 25% of the company’s total sales;
4. The company has real property or tangible personal property in California exceeds the lower of $71,154 or 25% of the company’s total; or
5. The company has payroll compensation in California exceeds the lower of $71,154 or 25% of the company’s total payroll.

The Struggle For Businesses

While there will likely be a delay in implementing California’s climate reporting requirements, companies have to decided soon how to respond. The choice comes with a hefty price tag. The SEC estimated compliance with their rule would cost a company approximately $1 million the first year. There is no reason to think California’s will be any different. As a result, companies are faced with a difficult decision – move forward with costly programs or hope for a delay.

There are a lot of unanswered questions while CARB drafts the climate reporting standards. However, given the current timeline, companies need to act now to evaluate if they meet the minimums and get their process in place by January 1.