Two years after Huntington Beach residents voted to effectively ban Pride flags from being displayed on city property, the conservative coastal city could be represented by a gay member of Congress and outspoken critic of President Trump — Rep. Robert Garcia.

That twist of fate came after last year’s unprecedented mid-decade rejiggering of California’s congressional districts.

Voters in November overwhelmingly approved Proposition 50 — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to neutralize Republican gerrymandering in Texas — to help Democrats win control of the House this November and put a meaningful check on the Trump administration.

The political tremors triggered by the ballot measure already have reshaped California’s political landscape.

Veteran Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of northern San Diego County, an incessant thorn in the backside of President Obama, has called it quits. Northern California Rep. Kevin Kiley has shed his GOP label to run as a political independent. And two Republican congressional incumbents find themselves in a political death match in a newly crafted district straddling Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

The new 42nd District remains anchored in Garcia’s home base of Long Beach. But under the new lines, it has swapped out Southeast L.A. communities such as Downey and Bell Gardens for the more MAGA-friendly cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach.

“I say that every time a district crosses the L.A.-Orange County border, a Democrat gets its wings,” said Paul Mitchell, the redistricting expert who drew the new lines for Democrats. “Drawing the Long Beach district to go down to Huntington Beach meant that you’re giving Robert Garcia a community that, in its elected City Council, has been real anathema to who he is as a person, being an out gay member of Congress.”

The change means Garcia’s district shifts rightward with a lot more Republican voters, but still has a Democratic majority. Former Vice President Kamala Harris would have still won the new district in the 2024 presidential race by 13 points, making Democrats confident that it’s still one where Garcia could win.

As the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Garcia is poised to win more power in pushing back against the Trump administration if historical precedent holds and Democrats win back the House majority in November.

Garcia was unavailable for an interview, but many of the new voters he will have to court are represented by Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine), who won the closely divided Orange County seat in 2024 and now faces a slightly bluer voting base in his newly configured district.

“I have a lot of voters to introduce myself to,” said Min, who described himself as “progressive for Orange County” because he cares about protecting civil rights but often aligns with law enforcement and small-business interests.

“The message [to new voters] is that you may not always agree with me, but that I will try my best to do what I say. I will fight to deliver on the promises I make, I will fight for the values that I represent myself as caring about. And I listen to my constituents,” he said, noting that he recently held his seventh town hall since he was elected.

In a neighboring Orange County district, Republican Reps. Young Kim and Ken Calvert are going to battle for control of the region’s only safe Republican seat post-Proposition 50. That district also crosses county lines — into Corona, Chino Hills and other parts of western Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

Republicans may be dismayed to see the two popular party leaders battling it out in what promises to be a brutal and expensive election.

Republican “primary voters are looking for how to distinguish between two of the same flavor,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican political strategist. “Republican voters are going to like both of them, so how do you make that judgment?

“Often, it comes down to who their friends are,” he said, noting that endorsements from interest groups and other elected officials are usually more valuable in primaries than general elections.

A handful of Democratic candidates have also declared for the seat, which campaign strategists said could split the liberal vote and allow both Calvert and Kim to advance to the general election ballot.

Issa bids farewell, Kiley drops GOP label

Issa’s decision to forgo a run for reelection came as a surprise Friday, even though speculation has swirled about his future after the newly drawn congressional districts put him in a seat where Democratic voters outnumber Republicans. That was a major downgrade from his current district, which swallows up right-leaning eastern San Diego County and the conservative pockets of Temecula and Murrieta.

“This decision has been on my mind for a while and I didn’t make it lightly,” Issa said in a statement. “But after a quarter-century in Congress — and before that, a quarter-century in business — it’s the right time for a new chapter and new challenges.”

Democrats celebrated the departure of Issa, who helped fund the successful 2003 recall of California Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, and led the congressional investigation of the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi during the Obama administration.

“After over two decades of disastrous representation, Darrell Issa is once again running for the exits — and good riddance,” said Anna Elsasser, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Several Democrats had already announced plans to challenge Issa, including San Diego City Councilmember Marni Lynn von Wilpert.

Proposition 50 also split the sprawling district held by Kiley, a Republican from Rocklin, into six pieces, leaving the Northern California congressman and frequent Newsom critic with few good options.

Over the following months Kiley posted on social media to announce — like the dating show “The Bachelor” — where he would not run until it came down to two districts: a safe Republican seat that would force Kiley into a primary with longtime Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Elk Grove) or a district with a 9-point Democratic registration advantage.

Kiley chose to avoid challenging McClintock and delivered his final rose to the new 6th District along with a twist: On Friday the congressman announced he would run as an independent candidate rather than a Republican.

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) in his office in Washington in 2025.

(Richard Pierrin / For The Times)

Advertisement

In a lengthy social media post and accompanying video, Kiley said he has become “frustrated, sometimes disgusted, by the hyper-partisanship in Congress” and that he answers to constituents, “not party leaders.”

But without a political party behind him, Kiley’s campaign is “entirely his burden,” said Republican strategist Matt Rexroad. “He’s not going to get the party endorsement. He’s really on his own.”

Without a letter denoting a political party next to their name on the ballot, independent candidates have historically gotten lost in the mix.

One other candidate, a Christian author named Michael Stansfield, confirmed Friday that he filed to run for the seat as a Republican, giving Kiley automatic competition for conservative votes.

Several Democrats have already announced campaigns for the seat — which lumps conservative suburbs of Sacramento with liberal-leaning ones closer to the capital city — including former state Sen. Richard Pan, Sacramento Dist. Atty. Thien Ho, West Sacramento Mayor Martha Guerrero and Lauren Babb, a public affairs leader for Planned Parenthood clinics in California and Nevada.

The race could revive a pandemic-era rivalry between Kiley and Pan, who tussled over vaccine and public health rules while serving in the state Legislature.

New districts, new challengers

For some longtime Democrats such as Rep. Brad Sherman, the addition of new GOP voters could help them fend off challenges from younger progressive candidates.

Half a dozen Democrats, mostly younger progressives, have filed paperwork to challenge Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), 71, who has represented parts of the San Fernando Valley for nearly 30 years.

The 32nd District remains solidly blue post-Proposition 50, but a nearly seven-point swing to the right “makes it less likely that two Democrats go to the general, which makes it less likely that [Sherman] would get beaten,” said Mitchell.

It’s a similar story for Reps. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento), Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) and John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove), who are all in their 70s and 80s and facing younger, more progressive challengers.

While gaining more conservative voters may help some incumbents avoid facing another Democrat in November, the threat of such a faceoff is pushing them to be more active on the campaign trail, Rexroad said.

“You’re seeing more activity by Doris Matsui and Mike Thompson and John Garamendi as a result of them being challenged, because they like their seats and they’d like to hold on to them,” Rexroad said.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

Data centers: What good are they for Colorado?

Re: “Dueling policies for data centers,” March 1 news story

The Denver Post article about two competing bills in the legislature regarding new data centers in Colorado seems to start with the presumption that we want the data centers.

Why do we want them and who wants them? Is it the politicians wanting bragging rights about our state becoming another Silicon Valley? Perhaps they want more businesses so they can collect more taxes from the new residents. Alternatively, they just want more power in Washington by increasing our population. Has anyone stopped to ask why we want to attract more people to our state?

Colorado is in a fight with other Western states to obtain more water for our growing population. Our wildlife is being crowded out by the increased urbanization. The roads are so crowded that it is not uncommon to come to a complete stop on our interchanges during rush hour. We have a serious housing shortage. The air is being polluted by the increased number of cars. These are all the result of a growing population. Did anyone stop to ask why we want more people?

During my 53 years living in Colorado, I have never heard anyone (other than politicians) say, “We need more people.” On the contrary, the conversation is more often about how we are becoming overcrowded. I would like the politicians to explain why we need more businesses and more people in our state. It should not be a presumption that more is better! Are our elected representatives truly reflecting the wishes of their constituents?

Doug Hurst, Parker

Anger and disbelief were our reactions when we read about House Bill 1030, which is under consideration at the statehouse. This outrageous corporate welfare bill would provide some of the world’s wealthiest corporations with massive state tax reductions to build monstrous resource-thirsty data centers. Analysts projected a $92.5 million tax loss in just three years if a bunch of these data centers are built. Just one 160-megawatt facility would gobble up as much power as 176,000 homes once completed. Consider for comparison that the entire DIA airport uses around 45 megawatts of power!

As the state legislature grapples with bone-deep budget cuts, we cannot afford to exempt data centers from paying their own way nor allow their unregulated construction. Taxpayer-funded corporate handouts would entail massive hits to tax revenue that should be used for our schools, roads, infrastructure, and valid state needs. What essential services will potentially be cut or axed to cover the lost revenue to the state from this corporate giveaway?

These data centers also demand massive amounts of our water. A CoreSite data center in Denver alone will use approximately 805,000 gallons of water per day to air-condition its computers. That is the same as the average daily indoor water use of 16,100 Denver homes.

I pray our state legislature will condemn HB-1030 to the corporate welfare hell where it belongs in. Instead, they should support Senate Bill 102 that will hopefully properly regulate these tax-eating, water-wasting, and electricity-gobbling monstrosities.

Terry Talbot, Grand Junction

We were in Hilo for a story that had zero to do with the parks. Visiting Volcanoes National Park again, together with the coconut bridge problem, had sent us across the island from Kona, and the plan was straightforward enough: After our long-awaited volcano visit ended, we planned to do the remaining reporting, get something to eat, and head back out to Kauai via wonderful Hilo Airport. We had not flown through Hilo in years and wanted to check it out, too, and we were glad we did. And we were not expecting Hilo itself to change anything about the day. But it did.

Hilo gave us something we weren’t expecting.

What changed it was not a museum, any paid admission attraction, or some “must-see” visitor stop. It was a public park near the airport that we could have very easily passed by.

Liliuokalani Gardens does not look that impressive from the road. There was no gate, no fee, no reservation sign, and none of the now-familiar friction that can come with so many Hawaii stops. You did not have to plan for it, book it, or have any special reason for just being there. We just showed up. And almost immediately, we had the same thought that many other locals and visitors probably would: how is this still free?

Liliuokalani Gardens still feels generous and opulent.

Not free in the sense of being modest or “nice for what it is.” Free in the sense that if this were packaged somewhere else as a formal attraction, people would pay for it without much hesitation. The gardens are spacious, beautifully kept up, and full of details that only really register once you show up and slow down. The ponds, the bridges, the stonework, the open lawns, the beautiful trees, the way the paths keep opening up to new views. Nothing about it feels slapped together or reduced to the bare minimum.

What impressed us was just how easy it felt spending time there. People were wandering, stopping, sitting, talking, exercising, and taking their time. Some sat on benches and picnicked, as we did, while others strolled along the paths without any clear destination. Nobody seemed rushed. It was clearly Hilo at its best.

More often than not, the Hawaii experience starts before you even arrive. There is planning, the fee, the booking window, the parking issues, the time slot, the shuttle, the warning signs, the whole uncomfortable low-grade sense that you are entering something managed as tightly as Hawaii deems necessary. Some of that is understandable. Some of it is probably unavoidable. But it changes the feeling of a place in Hawaii. And it turns too many stops into logistics first and enjoyment second. But not here.

Liliuokalani Gardens felt like the opposite. We could hear planes not far off landing and taking off, and still see how close we were to the airport and town, but inside the gardens, all of that fell away. What took over instead was the sound of water, the stillness around the ponds, the nesting nenes, the bridges, and the rare feeling that nobody was trying to move us along.

After we left the park and before returning to Hilo Airport, we also stopped at Rainbow Falls. That stop turned out to be a whole different story. More on that soon.

Liliuokalani Gardens dates back to 1917.

The Territorial Legislature set aside land in Hilo for a public park dedicated to Queen Liliuokalani. The gardens’ own history says the park grew out of an early Hilo push to create a Japanese garden and tea house, influenced by Hawaii’s large Japanese immigrant community and by Laura Kennedy’s 1914 trip to Japan. That history helps explain why the place feels so substantial today: it now spans 24.67 acres, including the Japanese-style garden, Moku Ola, and other connected park areas.

What Hilo exposed about Hawaii.

These places are not good only because they are free. They are just good, period. The fact that they are free only sharpens the comparison. In a state where more visitor experiences now come wrapped in fees, reservations, restrictions, and various bottlenecks, Hilo can still find ways to offer places that feel open.

That does not mean every site in Hawaii can or should work this way. Some places are too fragile, too much in demand, or too small. But Hilo is a reminder that not everything meaningful in Hawaii has to be turned into a managed product. Not every worthwhile thing needs a layer of hassle between the visitor and Hawaii itself.

We did not go to Hilo looking for a parks story at all. We were nearby because of the coconut bridge problem.

Hawaii visitors are paying more, planning more, and dealing with infinitely more rules than they used to. Sometimes that is the price of preserving what visitors came for in the first place. Sometimes, however, it reflects a broader shift in how the state now handles access, demand, and public spaces.

Hilo offered exceptional beauty without a transaction attached and access without any conditions. We could just arrive spontaneously, stay as long as we wanted, look around, and then leave on our own terms. After so many Hawaii stops built around fees, timing, and control, this is one place where the welcome doesn’t come with a price tag.

For more information, visit the Friends of Lili’uokalani Gardens website or Facebook page.

Lead Photo: © Beat of Hawaii.