Tit-For-Tat Gerrymandering Wars Won’t End Soon – What Happens In Texas And California Doesn’t Stay There

Gerrymandering dates back to struggles over U.S. foreign policy in the early 1800s and is named for a signer of the Declaration of Independence, Elbridge Gerry.

BY GIBBS KNOTTS AND CHRISTOPHERA. COOPER

Congressional redistricting – the process of drawing electoral districts to account for population changes – was conceived by the Founding Fathers as a once-per-decade redrawing of district lines following the decennial U.S. census. Today it has devolved into a near-constant feature of American politics – often in response to litigation, and frequently with the intent of maintaining or gaining partisan advantage.

Polls show widespread public disapproval of manipulating political boundaries to favor certain groups, a process known as gerrymandering. However, we currently see little hope of preventing a race to the bottom, where numerous states redraw their maps to benefit one party in response to other states drawing their maps to benefit another party.

The most recent round of tit-for-tat gerrymandering began in Texas. After drawing their post-census congressional maps in 2021, Republicans in the Texas Legislature, at President Donald Trump’s behest, are advancing a new set of maps designed to increase the number of Republican congressional seats in their state. The goal is to help Republicans retain control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections by converting five Democratic seats to ones that will likely result in a Republican victory.

In response, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is pushing to redraw his state’s map. Under Newsom’s plan, Democrats could gain five House seats in California, offsetting Republican gains in Texas. The California Legislature approved the new maps on Aug. 21 and Gov. Newsom signed the bills that day. Next, the maps will be presented to California voters in a special election on Nov. 4, 2025 for approval.

Newsom vows that he isn’t trying to disband the independent redistricting process that California enacted in 2021. Rather, he proposes to shift to these partisan gerrymandered maps temporarily, then return to independent, nonpartisan redistricting in 2031.

Democrats in Illinois and New York, and Republicans in Indiana, Missouri and South Carolina, have signaled that they may follow Texas and California’s leads. Based on our research on politics and elections, we don’t expect that the wave will stop there.

Rules for mapmakers

Redistricting has always been an inherently political process. But the advent of widespread, easily accessible computer technology, increasingly predictable voting patterns and tight partisan margins in Congress have turbocharged the process.

There are ways to tweak this gerrymandering run amok and perhaps block a bad map or two. But none of these approaches are likely to stop partisan actors entirely from drawing maps to benefit themselves and their parties.

The most obvious strategy would be to create guardrails for the legislators and commissions who draw the maps. Such guidelines often specify the types of data that could be used to draw the maps – for example, limiting partisan data.

Anti-gerrymandering rules could also limit the number of political boundaries, such as city or county lines, that would be split by new districts. And they could prioritize compactness, rather than allowing bizarrely shaped districts that link far-flung communities.

These proposals certainly won’t do any harm, and might even move the process in a more positive direction, but they are unlikely to end gerrymandering.

For example, North Carolina had an explicit limitation on using partisan data in its 2021 mapmaking process, as well as a requirement that lawmakers could only draw maps in the North Carolina State Legislative Building. It was later revealed that a legislator had used “concept maps” drawn by an aide outside of the normal mapmaking process.

In a world where anyone with an internet connection can log onto free websites like Dave’s Redistricting to draw maps using partisan data, it’s hard to prevent states from incorporating nonofficial proposals into their maps.

Courts and commissions

A second way to police gerrymandering is to use the courts aggressively to combat unfair or discriminatory maps. Some courts, particularly at the state level, have reined in egregious gerrymanders like Pennsylvania’s 2011 map, which was overturned in 2018.

At the national level, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering claims presented “political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts” and ultimately were better suited to state courts. There are still likely to be claims in federal courts about racial dilution and other Voting Rights Act violations in gerrymanders, but the door to the federal courthouse for partisanship claims appears to be closed for the time being.

A third option is for states to hand map-drawing power to an independent body. Recent studies show that independent redistricting commissions produce maps that are more competitive and fairer. For example, a nonpartisan scholarly review of the 2021-2022 congressional and state legislative maps found that commissions “generally produce less biased and more competitive plans than when one party controls the process.”

Commissions are popular with the public. In a 2024 study with political scientists Seth McKee and Scott Huffmon, we found that both Democrats and Republicans in South Carolina preferred to assign redistricting to an independent commission rather than the state Legislature, which has been in Republican control since 2000.

Studies using national polling data have also found evidence that redistricting commissions are popular, and that people who live in states that use commissions view the redistricting process more positively than residents of states where legislators draw congressional lines.

A national solution or bust

While redistricting commissions are popular and effective in states that have adopted them, current actions in California show that this strategy can fail if it is embraced by some states but not others.

Unfortunately, there is no simple solution for tit-for-tat gerrymandering. Litigation can help at the margins, and independent redistricting can make a difference, but even the best intentions can fail under political pressure.

The only wholesale solution is national reform. But even here, we are not optimistic.

A proportional representation system, in which seats are divided by the portion of the vote that goes to each party, could solve the problem. However, removing single-member districts and successfully implementing proportional representation in the United States is about as likely as finding a hockey puck on Mars.

A national ban on gerrymandering might be more politically palatable. Even here, though, the odds of success are fairly low. After all, the people who benefit from the current system would have to vote to change it, and the filibuster rule in the Senate requires not just majority but supermajority support.

So, brace for what’s about to come. As James Madison famously observed, forming factions – groups of people united by a common interest that threatens the rights of others – is “sown in the nature of man.”

Gerrymandering helps factions acquire and retain power. If U.S. leaders aren’t willing to consider a national solution, it won’t disappear anytime soon.

This article has been updated to clarify that California voters will consider their state’s proposed new maps in a special election on Nov. 4, 2025.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

When Socialists Win Democratic Primaries: Will Zohran Mamdani Be Haunted By The Upton Sinclair Effect?

Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, right, and Attorney General of New York Letitia James walk in the NYC Pride March on June 29, 2025, in New York. AP Photo/Olga Fedorova

BY JAMES N. GREGORY

PROFESSOR OF HISTORY,

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

It has happened before: an upset victory by a Democratic Socialist in an important primary election after an extraordinary grassroots campaign.

In the summer of 1934, Upton Sinclair earned the kind of headlines that greeted Zohran Mamdani’s primary victory on June 24, 2025, in the New York City mayoral election.

Mamdani’s win surprised nearly everyone. Not just because he beat the heavily favored former governor Andrew Cuomo, but because he did so by a large margin. Because he did so with a unique coalition, and because his Muslim identity and membership in the Democratic Socialists of America should have, in conventional political thinking, made victory impossible.

This sounds familiar, at least to historians like me. Upton Sinclair, the famous author and a socialist for most of his life, ran for governor in California in 1934 and won the Democratic primary election with a radical plan that he called End Poverty in California, or EPIC.

The news traveled the globe and set off intense speculation about the future of California, where Sinclair was then expected to win the general election. His primary victory also generated theories about the future of the Democratic Party, where this turn toward radicalism might complicate the policies of the Democratic administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

What happened next may concern Mamdani supporters. Business and media elites mounted a campaign of fear that put Sinclair on the defensive. Meanwhile, conservative Democrats defected, and a third candidate split progressive votes.

In the November election, Sinclair lost decisively to incumbent Gov. Frank Merriam, who would have stood less chance against a conventional Democrat.

As a historian of American radicalism, I have written extensively about Sinclair’s EPIC movement, and I direct an online project that includes detailed accounts of the campaign and copies of campaign materials.

Upton’s 1934 campaign initiated the on-again, off-again influence of radicals in the Democratic Party and illustrates some of the potential dynamics of that relationship, which, almost 100 years later, may be relevant to Mamdani in the coming months.

California, 1934

Sinclair launched his gubernatorial campaign in late 1933, hoping to make a difference but not expecting to win. California remained mired in the Great Depression. The unemployment rate had been estimated at 29% when Roosevelt took office in March and had improved only slightly since then.

Sinclair’s Socialist Party had failed badly in the 1932 presidential election as Democrat Roosevelt swept to victory. Those poor results included California, where the Democratic Party had been an afterthought for more than three decades.

Sinclair decided that it was time to see what could be accomplished by radicals working within that party.

Reregistering as a Democrat, he dashed off a 64-page pamphlet with the futuristic title I, Governor of California and How I Ended Poverty. It detailed his plan to solve California’s massive unemployment crisis by having the state take over idle farms and factories and turn them into cooperatives dedicated to “production for use” instead of “production for profit.”

Sinclair soon found himself presiding over an explosively popular campaign, as thousands of volunteers across the state set up EPIC clubs – numbering more than 800 by election time – and sold the weekly EPIC News to raise campaign funds.

Mainstream Democrats waited too long to worry about Sinclair and then failed to unite behind an alternative candidate. But it would not have mattered. Sinclair celebrated a massive primary victory, gaining more votes than all of his opponents combined.

Newspapers around the world told the story.

“What is the matter with California?” The Boston Globe asked, according to author Greg Mitchell. “That is the farthest shift to the left ever made by voters of a major party in this country.”

Building fear

Primaries are one thing. But in 1934, the November general election turned in a different direction.

Terrified by Sinclair’s plan, business leaders mobilized to defeat EPIC, forming the kind of cross-party coalition that is rare in America except when radicals pose an electoral threat. Sinclair described the effort in a book he wrote shortly after the November election: “I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked.”

Nearly every major newspaper in the state, including the five Democratic-leaning Hearst papers, joined the effort to stop Sinclair. Meanwhile, a high-priced advertising agency set up bipartisan groups with names like California League Against Sinclairism and Democrats for Merriam, trumpeting the names of prominent Democrats who refused to support Sinclair.

Few people of any party were enthusiastic about Merriam, who had recently angered many Californians by sending the National Guard to break a Longshore strike in San Francisco, only to trigger a general strike that shut down the city.

The campaign against Sinclair attacked him with billboards, radio and newsreel programming, and relentless newspaper stories about his radical past and supposedly dangerous plans for California.

EPIC faced another challenge, candidate Raymond Haight, running on the Progressive Party label. Haight threatened to divide left-leaning voters.

Sinclair tried to defend himself, energetically denouncing what he called the “Lie Factory” and offering revised, more moderate versions of some elements of the EPIC plan. But the Red Scare campaign worked. Merriam easily outdistanced Sinclair, winning by a plurality in the three-way race.

New York, 2025

Will a Democratic Socialist running for mayor in New York face anything similar in the months ahead?

A movement to stop Mamdani is coming together, and some of what they are saying resonates with the 1934 campaign to stop Sinclair.

The Guardian newspaper has quoted “loquacious billionaire hedge funder Bill Ackman, who said he and others in the finance industry are ready to commit ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’ into an opposing campaign.”

In 1934, newspapers publicized threats by major companies, most famously Hollywood studios, to leave California in the event of a Sinclair victory. The Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine and other media outlets have recently warned of similar threats.

And there may be something similar about the political dynamics.

Sinclair’s opponents could offer only a weak alternative candidate. Merriam had few friends and many critics.

In 2025, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who abandoned the primary when he was running as a Democrat and is now running as an independent, is arguably weaker still, having been rescued by President Donald Trump from a corruption indictment that might have sent him to prison. If he is the best hope to stop Mamdani, the campaign strategy will likely parallel 1934. All attack ads – little effort to promote Adams.

But there is an important difference in the way the New York contest is setting up. Andrew Cuomo remains on the ballot as an independent, and his name could draw votes that might otherwise go to Adams.

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, will also be on the ballot. Whereas in 1934 two candidates divided progressive votes, in 2025 three candidates are going to divide the stop-Mamdani votes.

Religion also looms large in the campaign ahead. The New York City metro area’s U.S. Muslim population is said to be at least 600,000, compared to an estimated 1.6 million Jewish residents. Adams has announced that the threat of antisemitism will be the major theme of his campaign.

The stop-Sinclair campaign also relied on religion, focusing on his professed atheism and pulling quotations from books he had written denouncing organized religion. However, a statistical analysis of voting demographics suggests that this effort proved unimportant.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Horse Teeth Hold Historical Clues About Military Power And Trade In Western Africa

Venerable unearths a dog skeleton during a field school program at the Saclo Village archaeological site in Benin. Photo: UC Santa Cruz and the Université d’Abomey-Calavi

BY ALLISON ARTEAGA SOERGEL

During her time at UC Santa Cruz, anthropology major Elyse Venerable conducted undergraduate research to help solve a centuries-old mystery. The Oyo Empire, once located in present-day western Nigeria, was known for its impressive cavalry, which cemented the empire’s power across Western Africa from the 17th to 18th century. But the region is also home to the tsetse fly, a notorious vector for diseases that kill horses. So cavalry horses must have been continuously imported. But from where? The answer could help anthropologists understand historical trade networks.

“Oyo’s cavalry made it one of the biggest imperial cities and kingdoms in the region, even having influence across the Sahara,” Venerable explained. “But it wouldn’t have been possible without trade. And now, through strontium isotope analysis, which is a type of archaeological science, we can start to trace the origins of these horses.”

To investigate, Venerable first identified horse teeth from archaeological sites in Nigeria and sorted them to determine which individuals they came from. Horses have certain teeth that develop in the early years of their adolescence, similar to humans, so Venerable determined each horse’s earliest and latest formed tooth based on tooth type of position. She used a diamond saw blade to extract a tiny enamel sample from each tooth. After dissolving the samples in acid, she conducted chemical analysis, using a mass spectrometer to measure the strontium isotope ratios in teeth of different ages from certain individual horses.

Strontium isotope ratios are a chemical signature in organic material, like bones and teeth, that reflects the unique environment where an organism lived while it was growing. Venerable matched the strontium isotope ratios from horse tooth samples against a strontium isotope map of Sub-Saharan Africa, developed by UC Santa Cruz Professor Vicky Oelze. The results show how the Oyo Empire’s horses may have moved throughout their lives, including through trans-Saharan trade.

Venerable and the research team are currently in the midst of writing a scientific paper on their findings and will submit them for publication in academic journals. Venerable’s contributions recently won her the UC Santa Cruz Chancellor’s Award and Dean’s Award for the Social Sciences Division, both of which honor outstanding undergraduate research. Professor Oelze, who was Venerable’s mentor on the project, praised her work ethic, teamwork, and remarkable ability to effectively immerse herself in new topics.

“For this project, Elyse actually taught herself the anatomy of domestic horses and how to evaluate their age at death from dental status,” Oelze said. “That is very impressive to do as a bachelor’s student. I absolutely loved working with Elyse and am immensely proud of her achievements.”

Venerable said she enjoyed the freedom that research gave her to develop new skills, with the support of a mentor.

“I never thought I’d be in a lab pouring acids on tooth enamel and using saw blades,” she said. “But knowing that I have that capability, and I can be STEM smart—especially for someone with a low income background, and who didn’t even know that I would get into college—it was empowering beyond words.”

Venerable credits the experience with helping to build her confidence as a researcher, and says the financial support she received for her research through the Building Belonging program was essential to making it all possible. Throughout her undergraduate career, she also had other amazing opportunities, like receiving funding to participate in archeological digs in Benin alongside Professor J. Cameron Monroe. She encourages other UC Santa Cruz students to connect with their professors and ask about opportunities to get involved outside of class.

Since graduating from UC Santa Cruz in Spring 2024, Venerable has been accepted to Harvard University’s Ph.D. program in Anthropology, where she’ll start in the fall.

“I’ll be training under Dr. Shayla Monroe, who’s an esteemed zooarchaeologist,” she said. “I’m looking forward to continuing to study historical African cavalries. I’d like to expand beyond the Oyo Empire to show how horses from across the Northern Sahara emerged in different African communities.”

Forcible Removal Of US Sen. Alex Padilla Signals A Dangerous Shift In American Democracy

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat from California, speaks to news reporters outside the Wilshire Federal Building after he was forcibly removed from a press conference on June 12, 2025. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

BY CHARLIE HUNT

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF

POLITICAL SCIENCE,

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY

Democratic leaders and a lone Republican senator, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, quickly decried the treatment of U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California and called for an investigation after he was removed from a press conference with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on June 12, 2025, in Los Angeles, handcuffed and forced to the ground.

“Sir! Sir! Hands off!” Padilla, 52, shouted as several federal agents surrounded and moved him out of the room where Noem was speaking about the Los Angeles protests against immigration enforcement. “I am Senator Alex Padilla. I have a question for the secretary.”

Padilla, who unexpectedly appeared at the press conference and interrupted Noem as she was speaking during her prepared remarks, was released soon after and met with Noem. Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, shared a video of the incident with Padilla on X, and wrote, “Incredibly aggressive behavior from a sitting US Senator. No one knew who he was.”

Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation, spoke with Boise State University political scientist Charlie Hunt, an expert on Congress, to understand how political polarization and a shift in American political decorum may have contributed to the shocking moment of an American senator being forcibly removed from a press conference.

What is striking to you about what happened to Sen. Padilla?

What stood out to me was the aggressiveness with which Noem’s security officers detained Sen. Padilla and took him out of the room. We do not ever see something like this happen to members of Congress and particularly members of the Senate. Sen. Padilla represents 39 million people – he is not some back-bencher member of the House of Representatives. I think it’s safe to say that no other modern presidential administration has come close to treating an individual member of Congress in this way.

This is also a real turn in terms of the completely autocratic way in which Department of Homeland Security staff responded to the incident. They claimed in a social media post that Padilla didn’t identify himself at the briefing, even though, “I’m Senator Alex Padilla” were the first words out of his mouth in the video that they themselves shared.

What safeguards, if any, do members of Congress have that might protect their ability to speak freely, and publicly oppose the executive branch?

Members of Congress enjoy the same basic free speech rights that all Americans do, but they do also have an additional set of protections that are relevant to this incident.

Members of Congress have significant oversight power, which involves doing due diligence on what actions the executive branch is taking and making sure they’re complying with laws that Congress has passed.

As a Senate member from California, it’s perfectly legitimate for Padilla to want clarity on immigration enforcement actions that are taking place in Los Angeles. Padilla even clarified after the incident that he was at the press conference to get answers from the Department of Homeland Security that he and other Senate members have been seeking for weeks about deportations.

This is completely in line with Congress’ oversight power. Senators often question officials in committee hearings like we typically see, but they also conduct fact-finding missions to learn how executive actions are affecting their constituents.

Congress members also have protections stemming from the Constitution’s speech and debate clause. Essentially, they cannot be arrested or indicted for things they say in their official capacity, which – because of Congress’ oversight responsibility – Padilla was clearly within the bounds of here.

Yes, of course, Padilla was also trying to draw attention to himself and the issues he’s focused on. But it’s not against the law to be a little bit disruptive or to engage in political theater, especially thanks to these additional protections members of Congress typically enjoy.

What other factors led to this moment?

Something I’ve written about previously is a phenomenon called negative partisanship. This means that voters and Congress members alike are driven not so much by loyalty to their own party but instead a sort of seething hatred for the other political party. What gets the most clicks and views, and what drives voters more and more, is the idea that “we don’t just want to see voting along the party line – we want to see our team beating the other side into submission.” This incident with Sen. Padilla was a very literal embodiment of this principle.

More broadly, this helps explain why political violence is becoming a more accepted form of political speech, particularly on the far right.

We have seen violence during Trump’s campaigns, where hecklers would be roughed up by participants at rallies, at Trump’s encouragement. Certainly, we saw it at the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, and Trump’s subsequent pardons of those rioters.

Does Padilla’s removal have anything to do with Donald Trump specifically?

We can’t ignore the singular role Trump has played here. This is a uniquely authoritarian presidency, even much more so than the first Trump administration. By authoritarian, I mean a leader who tries to rule on his own and suppress all dissent. Trump didn’t create partisanship, political violence or negative partisanship. But there’s no getting around the fact that his past behavior and openness to violence have lowered the bar for decorum in American politics.

For example, if you have convinced your supporters that the people on the other side of the political aisle are “sick” or “nasty,” that they are going to ruin the country, then those supporters will become more willing to accept some of the actions Trump has taken, such as calling in the Marines on protesters in Los Angeles, or pardoning the Capitol attackers – even if they wouldn’t have been willing to accept that kind of response 20 years ago.

All of these things combined – negative partisanship, plus having a leader on one side that is willing to lower the decorum bar beyond where we thought was possible – is a recipe for things unfolding like we saw with Padilla.

What will you be watching for as this situation plays out?

My concern is the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. We expect competition between the branches, for “ambition to counteract ambition,” as James Madison put it, to ensure one branch doesn’t get too powerful. This incident was a huge step in the wrong direction.

As Congress has been steadily torn apart by partisanship, it’s given up lots of its power over the past half-century and no longer seems to see itself as a coequal branch of government with the executive.

As a result, authoritarian presidents and administrations see an opening to treat them this way without consequences. What Congress does in the next several days about this episode will speak volumes – or not – about whether it intends to ever reassert itself as an equal branch of government.

Democrats held the floor in the Senate all afternoon to demand answers about Padilla’s treatment. It will be revealing how Senate Majority Leader John Thune and others respond. Lisa Murkowski has said she’s pretty appalled by what happened. Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham seemed to imply that Padilla deserved what he got. Which route will Republicans, who control Congress, take?

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Trump Orders Marines To Los Angeles As Protests Escalate Over Immigration Raids, Demonstrating The President’s Power To Deploy Troops On US Soil

National Guard members watch protests in Los Angeles on June 9, 2025. Luke Johnson/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

BY WILLIAM C. BANKS

PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF PUBLIC

ADMINISTRATION AND INTERNATIONAL

AFFAIRS, SYRACUS UNIVERSITY

President Donald Trump ordered a contingent of about 700 Marines to Los Angeles on June 9, 2025, in response to what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described as “increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings.”

This dramatic escalation of the military presence in Los Angeles followed Trump’s June 7 order to send about 2,000 National Guard troops into the city.

Both measures were Trump’s response to what he called “numerous incidents of violence and disorder” by those protesting his administration’s actions rounding up and deporting immigrants in the Los Angeles area.

State and local officials decried Trump’s actions, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom calling the move “purposefully inflammatory,” as well as “an illegal act.” California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to block its deployment of National Guard members. Other critics of Trump’s actions said the scale and character of the protests did not warrant such extreme measures.

Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with William C. Banks, a scholar of the role of the military in domestic affairs, to understand the extent of a president’s power to send American troops to Los Angeles.

Can American troops be used inside the country?

They can, but it is an extraordinary exercise of authority to use troops domestically. It has rarely been done in the U.S. as a way of responding to a civil disturbance.

Congress has delegated that authority of deploying American troops domestically to the president in limited circumstances. Otherwise, the only authority is exercised by governors, who have control of the National Guard.

Why was American law set up this way?

The U.S. was founded in response to heavy-handed English use of the military by King George to interfere with the civil liberties and rights of the colonists in the lead-up to the American Revolution. So, when the founders created the U.S. Constitution, they were very careful to insert roadblocks that would make it difficult for the government to use troops to carry out its own programs.

The country’s framers also understood there might be occasions when it would be necessary to use the military domestically. They did a couple of things to control the exercise of military authority. One was to ensure that the commander in chief of the military was a civilian. Second, they gave the authority to call up the National Guard, what was known as the “militia” in those days, to Congress, not to the president, in order to create a separation of powers.

Under what circumstances can the president deploy troops to an American city?

Under the Insurrection Act, which was signed into law in 1807, a president can deploy troops during what is called an insurrection, simply meaning when all hell breaks loose. The president can decide that it is “impracticable,” according to the Insurrection Act, to enforce the laws of the U.S. in a given city, and he may call forth the military or the National Guard to help restore law and order.

In order to invoke the Insurrection Act, the president first has to make a proclamation to those he calls the insurrectionists to cease and desist. Unless the alleged insurrectionists immediately do what the president says, the president then has the authority to deploy forces.

Trump has repeatedly called the protesters in Los Angeles “insurrectionists,” but has also walked those remarks back and hasn’t made any kind of formal proclamation yet. When Trump ordered California’s National Guard members to deploy to Los Angeles on June 7, he did so on a narrow statutory authority to protect federal buildings, properties and personnel that were trying to enforce immigration laws.

What is the Posse Comitatus Act and how does it apply to the current situation in Los Angeles?

Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. This act’s name derives from an arcane Latin term that means “the power of the county.” This law establishes a legal presumption in the U.S. that the military, if it is deployed domestically, should not engage in law enforcement.

This act is an important part of American law. It means that the military and National Guard are trained on this principle that they are not to engage in domestic law enforcement activities. Those are reserved for police, sheriffs and marshals. Invoking the Insurrection Act is the principal exception to this law.

So the Insurrection Act allows the military to act as law enforcement officials?

That’s right. By invoking the Insurrection Act the military could act as cops and have the right to arrest, investigate and detain civilians, with only the Constitution as a check on its power.

This is not a situation that California National Guard members have trained for. They are trained to fight actual wildfires, but this is something entirely different.

Are there any legal roadblocks that could curb the president’s authority to send U.S. troops to Los Angeles?

The short answer to this question is no.

Can state governors or other elected officials prevent U.S. troops from being sent to their cities?

In many ways that is the main question right now. California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, has said that the state doen’t need these military forces. Newsom’s June 9 lawsuit against the Trump administration argues that the authority over the National Guard is reserved for states, “unless the State requests or consents to federal control.” That has not happened in this case.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

California Plan To Ban Most Plants Within 5 Feet Of Homes For Wildfire Safety Overlooks Some Important Truths About Flammability

Plant flammability testing shows how quickly twigs, grasses, plants and leaves will burn at different moisture levels. The images on the right are from an experiment at the University of California’s South Coast Research and Extension Center to test flammability of a living but overly dry plant. Max Moritz (left); Luca Carmignani (right)

BY MAX MORITZ AND LUCA CARMIGNANI

One of the most striking patterns in the aftermath of many urban fires is how much unburned green vegetation remains amid the wreckage of burned neighborhoods.

In some cases, a row of shrubs may be all that separates a surviving house from one that burned just a few feet away.

As scientists who study how vegetation ignites and burns, we recognize that well-maintained plants and trees can actually help protect homes from wind-blown embers and slow the spread of fire in some cases. So, we are concerned about new wildfire protection regulations being developed by the state of California that would prohibit almost all plants and other combustible material within 5 feet of homes, an area known as “Zone 0.”

Wildfire safety guidelines have long encouraged homeowners to avoid having flammable materials next to their homes. But the state’s plan for an “ember-resistant zone,” being expedited under an executive order from Gov. Gavin Newsom, goes further by also prohibiting grass, shrubs and many trees in that area.

If that prohibition remains in the final regulation, it’s likely to be met with public resistance. Getting these rules right also matters beyond California, because regulations that originate in California often ripple outward to other fire-prone regions.

Lessons from the devastation

Research into how vegetation can reduce fire risk is a relatively new area of study. However, the findings from plant flammability studies and examination of patterns of where vegetation and homes survive large urban fires highlight its importance.

When surviving plants do appear scorched after these fires, it is often on the side of the plant facing a nearby structure that burned. That suggests that wind-blown embers ignited houses first: The houses were then the fuel as the fire spread through the neighborhood.

We saw this repeatedly in the Los Angeles area after wildfires destroyed thousands of homes in January 2025. The pattern suggests a need to focus on the many factors that can influence home losses.

Several guides are available that explain steps homeowners can take to help protect houses, particularly from wind-blown embers, known as home hardening.

For example, installing rain gutter covers to keep dead leaves from accumulating, avoiding flammable siding and ensuring that vents have screens to prevent embers from getting into the attic or crawl space can lower the risk of the home catching fire.

However, guidance related to landscaping plants varies greatly and can even be incorrect.

For example, some “fire-safe” plant lists contain species that are drought tolerant but not necessarily fire resistant. What matters more for keeping plants from becoming fuel for fires is how well they’re maintained and whether they’re properly watered.

How a plant bursts into flames

When living plant material is heated by a nearby energy source, such as a fire, the moisture inside it must be driven off before it can ignite. That evaporation cools the surrounding area and lowers the plant’s flammability.

In many cases, high moisture can actually keep a plant from igniting. We’ve seen this in some of our experimental work and in other studies that test the flammability of ornamental landscaping.

With enough heat, dried leaves and stems can break down and volatilize into gases. And, at that point, a nearby spark or flame can ignite these gases and set the plant on fire.

Even when the plant does burn, however, its moisture content can limit other aspects of flammability, such as how hot it burns.

Up to the point that they actually burn, green, well-maintained plants can slow the spread of a fire by serving as “heat sinks,” absorbing energy and even blocking embers. This apparent protective role has been observed in both Australia and California studies of home losses.

How often vegetation buffers homes from igniting during urban conflagrations is still unclear, but this capability has implications for regulations.

California’s ‘Zone 0’ regulations

The Zone 0 regulations California’s State Board of Forestry is developing are part of broader efforts to reduce fire risk around homes and communities. They would apply in regions considered at high risk of wildfires or defended by CAL FIRE, the state’s firefighting agency.

Many of the latest Zone 0 recommendations, such as prohibiting mulch and attached fences made of materials that can burn, stem from large-scale tests conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. These features can be systematically analyzed.

But vegetation is far harder to model. The state’s proposed Zone 0 regulations oversimplify complex conditions in real neighborhoods and go beyond what is currently known from scientific research regarding plant flammability.

A mature, well-pruned shrub or tree with a high crown may pose little risk of burning and can even reduce exposure to fires by blocking wind and heat and intercepting embers. Aspen trees, for example, have been recommended to reduce fire risk near structures or other high-value assets.

In contrast, dry, unmanaged plants under windows or near fences may ignite rapidly and make it more likely that the house itself will catch fire.

As California and other states develop new wildfire regulations, they need to recognize the protective role that well-managed plants can play, along with many other benefits of urban vegetation.

We believe the California proposal’s current emphasis on highly prescriptive vegetation removal, instead of on maintenance, is overly simplistic. Without complementary requirements for hardening the homes themselves, widespread clearing of landscaping immediately around homes could do little to reduce risk and have unintended consequences.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Cannabis Cafes, A.I. And Parking: How New California Laws Could Affect You In 2025

Hundreds of new laws take effect in California on Jan. 1 (Los Angeles Times photo illustration; photos via Getty Images)

BY ANABEL SOSA

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. (LOS ANGELES TIMES) - California lawmakers passed roughly 1,200 bills last year, including some that resulted in unforeseeable wins by Republicans, promising protections for consumers and small strides for those in the entertainment industry.

In the end, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed about 84% of the bills he received. Many of those laws take effect today, Jan. 1, as California rings in a new year. Here are a few you should know heading into 2025:

Cannabis

Cannabis cafes are legal: You can now hang out at dispensaries like you would a restaurant or cafe, thanks to AB 1775. The new law brings an Amsterdam-style approach to marijuana use, by allowing cannabis retailers to make and sell food and nonalcoholic beverages at what will be known as cannabis cafes or lounges. Before this law, customers could smoke in some dispensaries but the businesses were only allowed to sell prepackaged snacks and drinks. Some who are concerned with the health component call the law a step backward, given the risks of secondhand smoke.

Artificial Intelligence

Actors are protected from AI imitations: It is now required to create a contract to specify the use of artificial intelligence to replicate an actor’s voice or likeness. Assembly Bill 2602 aims to protect performers’ and actors’ careers by preventing artificial intelligence from replicating their voice or likeness without permission. In the summer of 2023, actors' and writers' unions shut down Hollywood during a months-long strike, ultimately negotiating new contracts around the use of artificial intelligence in their industry. Last year, courts also began to question the business of selling deepfakes of celebrities' voices and Scarlett Johansson raised concerns about an AI voice that sounded similar to hers.

Dead actors’ voices won’t be exploited: People will be subject to a $10,000 fine for using the voice of a dead actor or one that sounds like their voice without the consent of their estate.AB 1836 was sponsored by SAG-AFTRA and introduced in light of the advancements made in artificial intelligence that, the union said, can “easily clone human voices.”

Deepfakes with sexually explicit imagery are banned: Current revenge porn law is now expanded under SB 926 to prohibit the unauthorized distribution of artificially created sexually explicit images of a real person. The law applies specifically if there is intent to cause serious emotional distress to the person that is depicted in the image. Earlier this year, Laguna Beach High School officials investigated a student who circulated A.I.-generated sexually exploitative images, and in Beverly Hills, a group of eighth-graders was expelled for their involvement in superimposing pictures of their classmates’ faces onto simulated nude bodies through artificial intelligence.

Social media platforms will make reporting deepfakes easier: Social media platforms are now required to have a reporting mechanism for users who are portrayed in a sexually explicit video or image without their knowledge thanks to SB 981. The Los Angeles District Attorney's office, a sponsor of the bill, said that pornographic deepfakes are becoming a "growing threat" to adults and teens on social media.

Wages and Personal Finances

No more overdraft fees: State-chartered banks and credit unions are now barred under AB 2017 from charging overdraft fees, also known as nonsufficient fund fees, when customers try to make a withdrawal, purchase something on their debit card, or transfer payment but do not have enough funds and the transaction is declined. This was inspired by a similar proposal the Biden administration made early last year.

The minimum wage is going up: Workers paid the statewide minimum wage will get an annual increase to their hourly wages from $16 in 2024 to $16.50. This pay scale could vary depending on what city or county you are in and what industry you work in. The minimum wage for fast food workers is now $20 an hour and several cities, including Los Angeles, require minimum wages in other sectors that top $17 an hour.

Workers taking family leave will get more money: Workers who earn less than $63,000 a year will get 90% of their pay during leave to bond with a new baby or care for a sick family member, while workers making more than that will get 70% of their pay under SB 951, which passed in 2022. Previously, lower-paid workers were eligible for 70% of their pay during family leave, which made it impossible for many to take the time off, even though they were paying into the disability insurance system that covers the benefit. The new, higher replacement wage is paid for by all workers who pay into the state disability income program; they will have 1.2% of their pay deducted in 2025, up from 1.1% in 2024.

Housing

More time to respond to eviction notices: Tenants now have double the time to respond in writing to an eviction notice. The previous legal time to respond before legal action is taken was five business days, but it has now increased to 10 business days because of AB 2347. The bill's author said giving tenants only five days to respond was "uniquely short" and could often result in a landlord winning a case, without the tenant getting a day in court. Extending the response time, the author said, allows tenants more time to seek advice, gather evidence and file an appropriate response.

Healthcare

Medical debt won't be included in your credit score: Credit agencies can no longer include medical debt on people’s credit reports under SB 1061. An estimated 40% of Americans are burdened with some form of medical debt that they are unable to pay off. Advocates for this law argued that medical debt is a poor predictor of a person’s credit risk and can prevent individuals or families from finding housing, or getting employed, among other necessities.

Incarcerated women don't need permission to obtain menstrual products: Women in prisons and jails now have full access to period-care products like pads and tampons under AB 1810. The law allows women to obtain those products without having to ask prison guards for permission, which has been tied to reports of sexual harassment.

Education

Children will learn about pivotal California history: Public schools will now be required under AB 1805 to teach Mendez vs. Westminster, a 1947 court case involving a Mexican family from Orange County that fought to end segregation across California. The bill's author stressed the importance of teaching students about this court case to help them "learn of the civil rights challenges faced by Mexican Americans in this state."

Gender expression in schools: A first-in-the-nation law now bans school districts from requiring staff or teachers to disclose to parents if a student starts using a new pronoun or identifies as a different gender. AB 1955 will also protect school staff from retaliation if they refuse to notify parents of a child's gender preference. The policy was introduced in response to more than a dozen conservative-led school board policies that required teachers to notify parents if their child changed their names or pronouns. The issue set off heated debates in the state Capitol and across school districts, as some parents felt outraged that the state wanted to keep parents in the dark, while LGBTQ+ activists said mandatory notification promotes an "unsafe" environment by forced outing of students.

Safety

Parking will get harder, and walking will get safer: California has stricter parking rules underAB 413. Police can now ticket drivers who park within 20 feet of the crosswalk, which is around the length of a car. Drivers must abide by these rules regardless if the curb is painted red. The purpose of the law is to increase pedestrian visibility at busy intersections. The law has technically been in effect since the start of 2024, but police will begin fining drivers in January.

New laws to curb retail theft: Over the summer, the Legislature passed a sweeping package of 11 bills meant to address retail theft. Seven of them are now taking effect. Those include: retail stores can request restraining orders against people who repeatedly steal from their stores; prosecutors can coordinate and charge people with crimes across different counties and handle them in a single court and those who commit arson in the act of stealing will receive stiffer sentences. Read The Times' extensive coverage of these new laws.

REAAD ORIGINAL STORY HERE

“The Ritual” Tells The Story Of Inglewood Educator Tedric Johnson

Inglewood Educator Tedric Johnson (Los Angeles Standard)

BY JASON LEWIS

LOS ANGELES, CA (LOS ANGELES STANDARD) -- The Spot SoDo Studios has produced a documentary on Inglewood educator Tedric Johnson, who taught Black and Latino boys at Morningside High School who many teachers did not want to deal with. Through the Schools with a Purpose program, Johnson took students who were considered trouble makers, and many of whom were in gangs, and turned them into positive and successful members of society.

“Mr. J took who California deemed as the worst,” said Dominic Banks, owner of The Spot SoDo Studios and a former student of Johnson’s. “I had given up on school. My mindset was more of a hustling mindset, and I didn’t care. The first day that I had walked in Mr. Johnson’s class, that brother gave me the ‘Autobiography of Malcolm X,’ and he told me to read this. I opened up that book and it changed my life. I turned from being the kid that didn’t care to one of the top students in his class. I made sure to be an example of his program to my other peers.”

“Mr. Johnson would call my house if I was not in his class,” said Los Angeles Fire Department Captain Robert Hawkins, who is also the president of the Los Angeles City Stentorians African American firefighters association and a former student of Johnson’s. “If I chose to ditch, he would know, and my mother would know. Because of Mr. Johnson’s influence, I didn’t want to get on his bad side. I looked up to him and respected him. I loved him like a fatherly figure. It meant everything in the world to me for him to be proud of me. He was my role model. He knew how to talk in business meeting but he also knew the gang culture. He knew the big homies from the neighborhood, and he squashed so many beefs in his class.”

Johnson was able to connect with the boys in his class because he had their same background. He went to school in Inglewood. He had a similar upbringing in the same neighborhoods as his students so he could connect with them in ways that other teachers could not.

“I knew the areas in which they came from,” Johnson said. “I could speak the jargon. I could relate to them. I was someone who they could connect with. I am them. I matriculated through the Inglewood schools. To see someone who came back to the community, who was once them, who went to college and graduated, participated in sports, that was something that gravitated them to me and I gravitated to them. They were able to see someone on a day to day basis who was able to go through the system within Inglewood and come back and be represented in a positive manner. As African American males, we see many people that we perceive as being role models, but they are not tangible. Athletes, entertainers, politicians. But how many times do you get to interact with that person on a day-to-day basis where they can provide them with quality time and mentoring?

“It was my job to make sure that these individuals were taught from a perspective that they could understand. It was culturally responsive teaching. To incorporate from an Afrocentric perspective. It was my job to tap into their greatness and instill confidence in them so that they could be successful.”

Johnson’s program was created by the Los Angeles County Office of Education in 1991 and it ran until 1997.

“The concept was that it was a school within a school model,” Johnson said. “The concept arose out of the need to help African American males matriculate through high school, middle school, and elementary. The reason why this came about was because the African American male population were being denied a quality education. They were suspended and expelled at a higher rate than any other ethnic group and gender. One of the main principles was to choose African American men to lead these classes. I was fortunate enough to be chosen.”

Johnson believed that it was not the Black males fault that they were not succeeding, but the system and individuals within the system who were not giving them a fair chance.

“Teachers were intimidated by some African American males,” Johnson said. “So any specific reason that they could give to eliminate them from the class — not having a pencil, coming late, not having homework — they used those excuses to get rid of them from their classes. So therefore, if they were not in class, it was difficult for them to learn and to matriculate through the system. If individuals are given the proper tools and the proper environment for success, they will succeed. Success must be presented to all individuals without obstacles.”

Johnson taught the core curriculum of English, math, science, and social studies. Through his class he saw that his students had great improvements in confidence, accountability, respect, and they were getting better grades. Johnson’s mentorship also steered his students away from gangs.

“Ultimately if some of them stayed on the track that they were on, that would lead to either incarceration or an untimely death,” Johnson said. “I preached that on a daily basis.”

Telling Johnson’s story was extremely important to Banks because Johnson changed his life and the lives of many others like him.

“This tells the story of a gentleman who came back to his community in spite of the various gang culture that was going on at that time,” Banks said. “It’s also important because of the teachers. A lot of times teachers are not looked upon or paid financially in the same stipend that we pay athletes or entertainers. We admire those people. But yet there wouldn’t be any athlete, entertainer, or politician, without a teacher. This is a story of the gentleman who enlightened a lot of us. As a society we’re failing our youth. We’re losing kids constantly. We have an influx of gangs and weapons. We need to go back to the core teaching when teachers cared. Teachers pretty much raise our kids. We send our kids to school for eight hours, and if the teacher isn’t right or is going through things, how can our kids listen?”

Many films about inner city Black life show a struggle throughout the story, but this documentary focuses on the change that these students made.

“We watched ‘Boyz N the Hood,’ ‘Menace II Society,’ and the various Black movies that always end the same way; with a mother crying and somebody dead,” Banks said. “Mr. Johnson’s story needed to be told because his program was successful and positive.”

The documentary features one of Johnson’s students who went on to become a scientist.

“That brother is an astrophysicist,” Banks said. “This was a brother that society had thrown away, that wasn’t going to make it. He meets Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Johnson puts him on the road to success. He gives him the confidence that he can be whatever he wants to be. As you see the movie, you will see how Mr. Johnson has touched people so that they can be successful in life and in their community.”

The environment that Johnson created inspired Hawkins to become a firefighter.

“I learned about the medical terms from his class,” Hawkins said. ‘Mandible,’ ‘phalanges,’ ‘occipital.’ He brought people to come and talk to us about opportunities.”

Johnson’s class instilled a confidence in Hawkins that he did not know that he had when he was put back in classes with the rest of the student body.

“When Mr. Johnson mainstreamed me, I still didn’t believe in myself,” Hawkins said. “It was my senior year, and he told me that I had to go. But I was getting on the honor roll for the first time. I trusted him, and when I was mainstreamed, it worked. That’s when I started believing in myself. I could do this on my own as a senior. I graduated early by having over credits by being in his class.”

The title of the film, “The Ritual” comes from rituals that Johnson had in his class. At the end of each class as each student left, Johnson would stand by the door and shake all of their hands. Johnson also used a ritual when his students broke rules.

“We had discipline in the class,” Hawkins said. “If you came late, or was ditching, you got your name on the board. We had this thing called ‘The Ritual.’ We went on the track and you ran miles and then we went into the weight room. You didn’t want your name on the board because that ritual hurt. But everyday we left his class we shook his hand.”

California Secretary Of State Among Officials In 16 States Receiving Suspicious Packages

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (Wikipedia)

BY CLARA HARTER

SACRAMENTO, CA (LA TIMES) -- A suspicious package containing unbleached flour was received at the California secretary of state’s headquarters in Sacramento, in what appears to be the latest in a series of suspicious packages sent to election officials across the country, officials reported Thursday afternoon.

In total, suspicious packages have been sent to election officials in at least 15 other states, officials said. The source of the Sacramento package is unknown.

“Field testing and presumptive chemical test by state law enforcement revealed that the material contained within the package was non-hazardous and tested positive for unbleached flour,” Secretary of State Shirley Weber said in a statement, adding that federal authorities will continue to investigate the incident.

Weber said local elections offices are being advised to take extra precautions before handling mail that arrives at their facilities.

On Tuesday, the FBI and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service launched an investigation into suspicious packages sent to election officials in more than a dozen states, including Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Rhode Island, Mississippi and Connecticut.

So far, there have been no reports of injuries caused by the packages or harmful material contained in them. However, “an unknown substance” was found in some packages, FBI spokesperson Kristen Setera said in a statement.

A package delivered to an election office in Oklahoma was also found to contain flour, state officials reported.

This is the second time in recent months that election offices in multiple states have been targeted with suspicious mail.

In November, letters were sent to election offices in five states, several of which were found to include fentanyl, the FBI and U.S. Postal Inspection Service reported.

This latest wave of suspicious deliveries comes as early voting kicks off for the November election in several states. Former President Trump, the GOP nominee for president, has continued to insist, without proof, that he lost the last election due to voter fraud, putting extra scrutiny on the nation’s balloting process and on election officials.

On Tuesday, the National Assn. of Secretaries of State, or NASS, issued a statement condemning the the suspicious mailings as well as the recent assassination attempts against Trump.

“Our democracy has no place for political violence, threats or intimidation of any kind,” the NASS stated.

Weber said her office will continue to work with state and federal law enforcement to monitor any threats to California election workers.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

How San Francisco’s Democratic Political Machine Led To Kamala Harris’ Presidential Campaign

Sen. George Moscone, right, roars with relief as he is congratulated by Congressman Phillip Burton on his close victory in San Francisco’s mayoral runoff, Dec. 12, 1975. AP Photo/Jim Palmer

BY LINCOLN MITCHELL

SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL 

AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS,

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

The political earthquake that has made Kamala Harris the Democratic Party’s nominee for president is a San Francisco story that began more than 60 years ago.

The cast of characters includes a chain-smoking, hard-drinking and profane political mastermind; a Polish Jewish activist who fled the Nazis and later became a member of Congress; a Black lawyer and civil rights activist from rural Texas; and the scion of a powerful political family who moved to San Francisco when she got married and made it to Congress in substantial part due to a deathbed endorsement from the refugee-turned-congresswoman.

Harris, whose first foray into electoral politics was in 2003 when she won a tough race for district attorney in San Francisco, and Nancy Pelosi, the longtime San Francisco congresswoman who was instrumental in persuading Joe Biden not to seek reelection, can both trace their political origins and their brand of liberal politics to the 1963 mayoral election in San Francisco.

The two major candidates in that race were the Republican, Harold Dobbs, and the Democrat, Jack Shelley. Shelley had served in Congress since 1949, had strong ties to organized labor and was seeking to become San Francisco’s first Democratic mayor in over half a century.

Dobbs was an affable businessman and one of the owners of a popular diner chain known as Mel’s Drive-In. In the days just before the election, there was a demonstration outside of a Mel’s Drive-In location in San Francisco because of the chain’s refusal to hire African Americans in customer-facing positions, such as waiters or waitresses. The young civil rights attorney who expertly organized that boycott and therefore helped deliver the election to Shelley was Willie Brown.

Shelley won the election, and that’s when the pieces started to fall into place that paved the way for, six decades later, Harris having the presidency within her reach.

Birth of a legacy

In an early 1964 special election, California Assemblyman Phil Burton, from San Francisco, won Shelly’s old seat in Congress. That’s where Burton’s reputation for profanity, drinking and political genius would grow for almost 20 years. Whether it was redistricting, candidate recruitment, messaging or campaign strategy, Burton was a mastermind.

In 1960, his brother John introduced Phil to a handsome, young and progressive Italian American attorney who had been an all-city basketball player interested in getting into politics. Phil Burton recognized the young man’s potential and told him to run for the California Assembly in 1960, and that although he would inevitably lose, the name recognition and reputation he would gain would position him to run for the city’s Board of Supervisors, San Francisco’s equivalent of the city council, a few years later.

The plan worked brilliantly, as George Moscone was elected to the Board of Supervisors in 1963, the state Senate in 1966, where he became majority leader in 1967 and eventually mayor of San Francisco in 1975.

Burton was able to help place people like Moscone into powerful political positions because he could deliver organized labor, raise money and ensure redistricting that would draw friendly lines for his allies.

Shortly after Phil Burton got elected to Congress, Phil’s brother John won Phil’s old California Assembly seat in another special election. The Burton brothers then had enough power to put together a formidable political operation in San Francisco – one whose impact is playing out on the national stage today.

A generation of powerful Bay Area politicians, including former U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, former U.S. Rep. George Miller, Moscone and others were part of the Burton political operation and benefited from its support.

In Congress, Phil Burton fought tirelessly for progressive causes. His most famous achievement may have been helping to create the 80,000-acre Golden Gate National Recreation Area that includes parts of Marin County and San Francisco.

The machine matures

The next thing the Burton brothers did after the 1963 election was to back Willie Brown in a Democratic primary later in 1964, in a different state Assembly district, against incumbent Democratic Assemblyman Ed Gaffney.

Brown won that primary and the subsequent general election and would hold onto that seat until he was elected mayor of San Francisco in 1995. For the final 15 years he was in the Assembly, Brown was the speaker of that body, becoming what one California politics journal called “the most powerful Black politician in the country in the 1980s and ‘90s.”

Phil Burton would serve in the House of Representatives until his death in 1983, and come within one vote of becoming House Majority Leader in 1976. Upon Burton’s death, his seat in Congress was taken by his widow, Sala Burton, a Jewish woman who had fled Poland and made her way to San Francisco in the late 1930s.

Four years later, in 1987, Brown was at the height of his powers in Sacramento. He was able to send money to embattled Democratic incumbents to ensure his majority in the Assembly until the 1994 election – and stop the more extreme plans of Republican governors. John Burton, after spending a decade in the state Assembly and another decade in Congress, was out of office and addressing some personal problems. Sala Burton was dying of colon cancer.

It is a San Francisco legend that everybody in politics wanted to know who Sala Burton and her brother-in-law John wanted to run for her seat – which was still seen as Phil Burton’s seat – because whichever candidate had the support of the Burton political operation was almost sure to win.

A deathbed anointment

Sala made it clear that she wanted “Nancy.”

Many, including John Burton, assumed she meant Nancy Walker, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Sala Burton had another Nancy in mind: a political insider and longtime ally of the Burtons who had never run for office but was well known for both her political savvy and her ability to raise money.

By 1987, the youngest of Nancy Pelosi’s five children had graduated from high school, so Pelosi was ready to run for office. With the backing of the Burtons, who had allies and supporters throughout San Francisco, Pelosi won that 1987 special election, defeating Supervisor Harry Britt. Pelosi has been reelected every two years since and is expected to win another term in November 2024.

Those events, from 1963-64 through 1987, set the stage for July 2024.

Enter Kamala Harris

In the mid-1990s, when Harris was a young prosecutor in Alameda County, she was romantically involved with Willie Brown. Brown was married at the time. By then, he had a decades-old reputation for squiring women other than his wife around San Francisco and Sacramento and being the best-dressed politician in California, and possibly anywhere.

After they broke up, Brown was Harris’ political mentor, helping her get started in San Francisco politics and win her upset victory in the 2003 district attorney’s race there. From there, she became the state attorney general, a U.S. senator, the Democratic vice president and, now, the Democratic nominee for president.

The Burton brothers set out in the 1960s to move the Democratic Party in California leftward, and in doing that put a chain of events in motion that has the whole world’s attention today. Now, Kamala Harris espouses the same progressive politics that were embodied by Phil Burton and his brother John and carried forward by their anointed heirs.

Former House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s statement that “all politics is local” is quoted too frequently, and is less true than in the past. But it turns out that in San Francisco, once in a while, all local politics are national.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE