This Sunday ICYMI edition is always free for all subscribers and visitors to this Substack page! Thanks for being a part of this look at CA politics!

THIS IS A GREAT E-MAIL TO FORWARD TO PEOPLE YOU THINK MIGHT ENJOY OUR CONTENT!

A short video commentary…

BELOW ARE FIVE STORIES FROM THIS WEEK THAT YOU MAY HAVE MISSED!

One More Video… A Conversation And Election Post-Mortem with Mariel Garza of the Golden State Report…

On This Date In 1946… A President Was Born…

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP TURNS 80

Eighty years ago today, on June 14, 1946, Donald Trump was born in Queens, New York. Few Americans have had a greater impact on the nation’s political landscape in the 21st century.

Before entering politics, Trump built a national profile as a real estate developer, businessman, and television personality. His 2016 presidential victory reshaped the Republican Party and upended many assumptions about modern American politics. Running as an outsider, he defeated a crowded Republican field before winning the general election against Hillary Clinton.

His first term featured tax cuts, deregulation, a more restrictive immigration policy, and the appointment of three Supreme Court justices. After losing the 2020 election, Trump remained the dominant figure in Republican politics and mounted a successful comeback campaign, returning to the White House in 2024. His political resilience, ability to command media attention, and influence over the GOP are virtually unmatched in modern American history.

Whether viewed as a transformative reformer or a deeply polarizing figure, Trump’s place in American history is secure. As he reaches his 80th birthday, his influence continues to shape political debates both in the United States and around the world.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY PRESIDENT TRUMP!

Other Notable People Turning 80 This Year

Trump is not alone among the Class of 1946. Other well-known figures reaching the milestone this year include Dolly Parton, the country music icon whose career has spanned more than six decades; Sylvester Stallone, creator of Rocky and Rambo; Tommy Lee Jones, one of Hollywood’s most respected actors; Cher, whose career has crossed multiple generations and genres; and Steven Spielberg, among the most influential filmmakers in history. Together, they represent a remarkable generation that has left an outsized mark on American culture, entertainment, and public life. By the way, the only other President to turn 80 in the White House was… Joe Biden!

This Saturday feature, which is a labor of love for me, is packed with amazing content. It’s very popular. For those of you who subscribe ($70/year, $7/month), this column is a thank you for your support of my independent work. Below the paywall are a lot of interesting things to read that you might not find online, but I did. Things you will want to read!

A couple of curated reads are above the paywall. Much more is below… Even on this lighter version as I am on vacation (in Maui!). Aloha!

THANK YOU for being part of this project and for putting a spotlight on California politics!

Subscribe now

CALIFORNIA’S EXCUSES ARE DAMAGING FAITH IN GOVERNMENT

In this New York Times editorial (gift link), the Editorial Board argues that California’s chronically slow vote-counting process has become a failure of governance that undermines public confidence in elections. The piece notes that California once counted ballots quickly and that most other states still do, yet the state now routinely takes weeks to complete election results. While defending accessible voting, the editors contend that ballots should generally arrive by Election Day and be counted promptly. The article makes the case that efficiency, transparency, and public trust all suffer when election outcomes remain unresolved long after voters have cast their ballots. When California Democrats have lost the editorial page of their own liberal paper of record…

THE LOS ANGELES MAYOR’S RACE

In this Substack analysis, my friend and veteran political strategist Matthew Klink examines the dynamics of Los Angeles’ 2026 mayoral contest and the surprising rise of Spencer Pratt as a vehicle for voter frustration with the city’s direction. Klink argues that the race reflects deeper dissatisfaction with City Hall’s handling of homelessness, public safety, affordability, and the aftermath of the Palisades fire. While Pratt ultimately fell short of advancing, the campaign exposed significant vulnerabilities for the political establishment and demonstrated that a sizable share of Angelenos are hungry for change. The piece offers an insider’s perspective on what the results reveal about Los Angeles politics heading into November.

Matthew’s Substack

The Los Angeles Mayor's Race

For months, political observers assumed Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass was the story. Then Spencer Pratt happened…

Read more

5 days ago · 3 likes · Matthew Klink

Want More?

OK, this column is like a big tree. You can see only some of it above the ground. But all of the roots go deep underneath…Below the paywall is SO MUCH MORE.

There’s a free trial - try it out and read all kinds of stuff, curated as a special thank you to our now 600+ paid subscribers!

If you appreciate my work here, support me. That’s how you keep voices like mine around!

Read more

[REMINDER, WE ARE ON A VACATION SCHEDULE THIS WEEK AND NEXT]

Our morning content is free for all subscribers and guests! Usually our afternoon content is behind a paywall, but not when I am previewing a California Post column… If you are not yet a paid subscriber, consider upgrading — you are missing a significant portion of what we produce each week, and your support makes it possible. If you want to get it all and support my efforts, please consider a paid subscription!

Subscribe now

You can also listen to this post — along with my California Post column — on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It is available on your favorite podcast app. And you can listen to it here.

⏱️ 4 min read

The Survey And What It Found

With Xavier Becerra and Steve Hilton now established as the top two finishers in California’s gubernatorial primary, the Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies released its first general election assessment of the race yesterday. Becerra — California’s former Attorney General and former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary under President Biden — is the Democrat. Hilton — British-born political commentator, entrepreneur, former Fox News host, and Trump-backed Republican — is the Republican.

The survey, conducted online May 19–24 among more than 8,500 registered California voters, puts Becerra at 52 percent and Hilton at 31 percent, with 17 percent undecided. The poll is among the most credible in state politics, run by veteran pollster Mark DiCamillo and funded in part by the Los Angeles Times.

The topline confirms what most California political observers already expected: the general election begins with a Democrat holding a commanding lead in a state that has not elected a Republican governor in more than two decades — and the last one was an internationally known action-movie star. But the poll does not merely show that Becerra is ahead. It shows why Democrats remain structurally dominant in California — and why Becerra should not be mistaken for a political powerhouse.

A Lead Built On Math — And An Anchor That Makes It Worse

The 21-point margin sounds decisive, but California’s partisan structure makes it difficult to interpret at face value. A generic Democrat in a two-way statewide race in California normally begins with a very large structural advantage. Becerra at 52 percent, with 17 percent still uncommitted, is performing below what the state’s partisan baseline might otherwise suggest.

DiCamillo notes this in his own write-up: Democratic registrants outnumber Republicans by 20 percentage points, giving Democratic candidates what he calls “a huge advantage in general elections.” The lead is real. It is not a measure of Becerra’s individual strength as a candidate.

Compounding that problem for Hilton is the fact that he started there. Trump’s job approval among California registered voters stands at 29 percent approve, 69 percent disapprove — with 62 percent disapproving strongly. The Berkeley survey finds these numbers essentially unchanged across years of measurement.

Trump’s endorsement was clearly helpful fuel in the Republican primary, with 37 percent of likely GOP voters saying it made them more likely to back Hilton. In a general election decided by the entire electorate, that same endorsement serves as an anchor. The credential that helped accelerate Hilton’s path to the top two is now one of the largest obstacles to everything that comes next.

The Voters Who Matter Most

No Republican has a realistic path to statewide victory in California without performing strongly among No Party Preference voters. NPP voters account for roughly three in ten registered voters in California. Right now, Becerra leads among them 43 to 28, with 29 percent still undecided.

That undecided pool is the most genuinely open terrain in this survey — the one number a Hilton strategist can point to with any encouragement.

The problem is what surrounds it. NPP voters disapprove of Trump’s performance as president by 68 to 22 percent — nearly three to one. The voters Hilton must win are the voters most alienated from the political identity that helped him secure his spot in November.

Creating sufficient separation from that brand while keeping his base intact is the central strategic challenge of the next five months. The math says those voters are theoretically available. Nothing in this poll suggests Hilton has yet found the argument to reach them.

The Narrative The Data Doesn’t Support

One more detail is worth examining before leaving the toplines. The IGS press release leans into a historic framing: co-director G. Cristina Mora contributed a lengthy passage about California’s “long-standing Latino plurality” and described a potential Becerra victory as a “model for multiracial democracy-building.”

The cross-tabs do not support that much narrative weight. Becerra wins Latino voters 52 to 28 — precisely his overall statewide number. The history may be meaningful. But the polling data do not show a distinct Latino surge for Becerra. At least in this survey, Latino voters appear to be behaving much like the electorate as a whole.

So, Does It Matter?

California has not elected a Republican governor since Arnold Schwarzenegger, and nothing in this survey alters that arithmetic. But a genuine race between two candidates with genuinely contrasting governing philosophies forces the majority party to defend a record rather than run against a placeholder.

The Newsom era has produced real and accumulating grievances — housing costs, public safety, the high-speed rail boondoggle, taxpayer-funded health care for people who entered the country illegally, unemployment-insurance fraud, the insurance crisis, and basic fiscal management. A credible Republican on the ballot forces a real debate over that record.

That is almost certainly the campaign Hilton will try to run: a race about competence, accountability, affordability, and the accumulated failures of California state government. Becerra’s incentives point in the opposite direction. The data suggest he has little reason to take unnecessary risks or help elevate Hilton into an equal combatant. Expect Becerra to run as the generic Democrat in a blue state, stay low-key where possible, and repeatedly recast the race as Trump-and-Hilton rather than Becerra-versus-Hilton.

The undecideds are real. Hilton’s path requires Becerra to stumble in a visible and serious way. That possibility is not zero. But this poll does not show a competitive race — yet. It shows where one could theoretically develop.

Premium Subscribers: The Story Gets More Interesting

The Berkeley IGS data contains far more than the headline numbers reported in most news coverage.

Below the paywall, I take a deeper dive into the cross-tabs and examine several findings that received little attention in the poll's release. Some reinforce the conventional wisdom. Others point to vulnerabilities and opportunities that neither campaign is likely eager to discuss.

Among the topics covered:

• Why financially stressed voters are producing some of the closest numbers in the survey

• How much of Becerra’s support appears tied to Gavin Newsom’s existing coalition

• The favorability numbers that suggest Becerra’s lead may be softer than it looks

• The regional breakdowns showing where Hilton is competitive — and where he is getting buried

• What the data says about independent voters and the narrow Republican path in California

Premium subscribers can continue reading below. What? You’re not a paid sucriber yet? Jump in! Get exclusive content several times a week, and help support this project!

Read more

[REMINDER, WE ARE ON A VACATION SCHEDULE THIS WEEK AND NEXT]

Our morning content is free for all subscribers and guests! Usually our afternoon content is behind a paywall, but not when I am previewing a California Post column… If you are not yet a paid subscriber, consider upgrading — you are missing a significant portion of what we produce each week, and your support makes it possible. If you want to get it all and support my efforts, please consider a paid subscription!

Subscribe now

You can also listen to this post — along with my California Post column — on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It is available on your favorite podcast app. And you can listen to it here.

California’s Peculiar Primary System Forced the GOP to Get Strategic

My latest California Post column examines a reality that many California conservatives faced this year: under the state’s top-two primary system, voting for your favorite candidate is not always the same thing as voting strategically.

For much of the race, Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco split Republican support, while Xavier Becerra and Tom Steyer consolidated Democratic votes. As Election Day approached, a growing number of Republicans began asking a difficult question: what happens if the GOP vote remains divided?

In my full column, I examine how California’s primary system changes voter behavior, why many conservatives ultimately rallied behind Hilton, and how close Republicans may have come to being completely shut out of the November ballot.

The larger issue goes beyond any one election.

California’s top-two system was sold as a reform that would empower voters. Instead, it often forces voters to think less about who they most want to represent them and more about who can survive the primary.

When voters feel compelled to abandon their first choice to prevent their least-favored outcome, is that really a healthier democracy?

This year, Republicans successfully navigated that challenge. But the election also exposed the unintended consequences of a system that routinely rewards strategy over preference.

👉 Read my full California Post column HERE. (No Paywall)

Our morning content is free for all subscribers and guests! This morning, as a thank you to our paid subscribers, we have three more great political cartoons below the column! Upgrade today! You can subscribe for FREE to get most of my content delivered to your inbox. A PAID subscription is $7 a month or $70 a year, and it gets you access to ALL of my stuff (about 35% more). Why subscribe? Because now more than ever, you need someone calling balls and strikes, and who isn’t owned by ANYONE.

Subscribe now

You can also listen to this post on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It is available on your favorite podcast app. And here.

⏱️ 6 minute read

Weeks, Not Days

Every election cycle, Californians watch much of the country find out who won while our own races drag on for days or weeks. The familiar excuse is that California is big. True enough. But size is not the real story.

The real reason California takes so long to count votes is that Democratic policymakers spent decades building an election system designed to accept, review, fix, route, and count as many ballots as possible. The long count is not a bug. It is the predictable result of the rules Sacramento wrote.

Today, more than 80% of California voters cast ballots by mail. Every active registered voter receives a live ballot, with return postage paid, that can be mailed, dropped in a box, or delivered to a vote center. Ballots arriving after Election Day can still count if they meet state law. Signature problems, provisional ballots, and ballots submitted in the wrong county can all require post-election review.

California is not merely different from Texas and Florida. It is unusual among large states generally. New York and Illinois rely far less on mailed ballots than California does. Florida counts quickly because its mail ballots generally must be received by Election Day. California sits near the far edge of American election practice.

Election Day is no longer really a day.

One Law At A Time

Supporters call this voter access. Why should a working parent stand in line after work? Why should a senior citizen travel to a polling place?

California Democrats answered by removing obstacle after obstacle. Absentee voting became permanent absentee voting. Then came no-excuse vote-by-mail. Then came the current system, where a live ballot automatically arrives in nearly every voter’s mailbox.

These changes were largely enacted by Democratic legislators, frequently over Republican objections, and signed by Democratic governors. Universal mailed ballots, prepaid postage, expanded ballot curing, extended receipt windows, and tighter limits on meaningful ballot challenges all point in the same direction: make voting easier, even if the result is slower counts and less finality.

Many Californians complain that election results take weeks. But those delays flow from laws deliberately written to make voting easier. Sacramento Democrats chose this.

Just Trust Us

Convenience is not the only value elections must protect.

For most of American history, voting happened in controlled settings. Voters appeared at polling places. Officials verified eligibility. Observers watched. Ballots stayed largely under election officials’ supervision.

Universal vote-by-mail changes that. Millions of live ballots are sent to homes, apartment buildings, dormitories, assisted-living facilities, and other places outside official control. Most voters use those ballots honestly. But that is not the only test. The question is whether the system creates more opportunities for fraud, coercion, ballot harvesting, or administrative error.

California also relies heavily on trust in election officials. Once a mail ballot is accepted, election workers separate the ballot from the identifying envelope to preserve ballot secrecy. That protects voter privacy. It also means that once separated, there is generally no practical way to identify which voter cast which ballot.

If questions arise later, voter-specific challenges become extraordinarily difficult. The key decisions must be made before the envelope and ballot are separated. After that, the system depends heavily on the assumption that officials got it right.

That may protect ballot secrecy. It does not necessarily inspire public confidence.

More Than A Utility Bill

The deeper issue is not administrative. It is civic.

For generations, Americans understood voting as something that required effort. Citizens registered. They learned about candidates and issues. They traveled to a polling place. The process itself reminded people that the decision mattered.

California Democrats have moved the state in a very different direction. Today, a voter can receive a live ballot automatically, fill it out at the kitchen table, and return it with no postage required. In many cases, voting now takes little more effort than paying a utility bill.

Some will call that progress. Maybe it is.

But voting is not a consumer transaction. It is one of the central responsibilities of citizenship in a self-governing republic. Does democracy become stronger when voting is made nearly effortless? Or is there value in requiring citizens to make some affirmative commitment to participate?

That question deserves a serious debate.

So, Does It Matter?

California’s lengthy vote count is not the result of incompetence. County election workers are operating the system Sacramento gave them. The delays come from decades of laws that prioritized ballot access, convenience, and inclusion above speed, scrutiny, and finality.

The debate may soon become more than theoretical. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this month in Watson v. Republican National Committee, a case over whether federal law permits states to count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day. A ruling requiring ballots in federal races to be received by Election Day could affect California’s federal elections and put pressure on the state’s broader practices.

But even that would not settle the larger debate. Millions of live ballots would still be mailed automatically to voters. Signature curing would remain. Voter-specific ballot challenges would still be difficult after ballots are separated from identifying envelopes.

So the next time Californians wonder why election results take so long, they should not blame county election workers. They should look to Sacramento.

Even if the Supreme Court changes the rules for late-arriving ballots, California will still face the bigger question: what kind of voting system — and what kind of voting culture — do we want?

ADDITIONAL READING…

THERE’S MORE!

Below are three more great political cartoons on the topic of this column, exclusively for our paid subscribers…

Read more

Our morning content is free for all subscribers and guests! This morning, as a thank you to our paid subscribers, we have three more great political cartoons below the column! Upgrade today! You can subscribe for FREE to get most of my content delivered to your inbox. A PAID subscription is $7 a month or $70 a year, and it gets you access to ALL of my stuff (about 35% more). Why subscribe? Because now more than ever, you need someone calling balls and strikes, and who isn’t owned by ANYONE.

Subscribe now

You can also listen to this post on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It is available on your favorite podcast app. And here. This podcast will include this intro followed by the entire column on Wilson!

We’ve Had Some Awful Presidents In Our History, But There Can Only Be One Who Takes the Title of Worst Of All Time…

For decades now, I have held a conviction that puts me at odds with much of conventional history: Woodrow Wilson was the worst president in our nation's history.

That view did not arrive overnight, and it is not the product of partisan reflex. It has been shaped over many years of reading scholarly works on Wilson, the Progressive movement, and the founding principles he set out to overturn, and it was sharpened considerably through my time as a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute, where the relationship between the Founders’ Constitution and the administrative state is taken seriously rather than waved away.

What I kept finding lacking, though, was something I could simply hand to people. Plenty of fine work exists, but much of it is long, academic, and written for specialists. I wanted a single piece that made the case clearly and forcefully, yet did so succinctly enough that a busy reader would actually finish it.

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a major address in which he called out Wilson by name, reminding the country that he rejected the founding promise that all men are created equal and stood at the head of a movement the justice tied to some of the last century’s gravest evils. I will put it more bluntly than a sitting justice can: Wilson was a racist, and the machinery of arrogant, unaccountable power he built was evil in its consequences. Hearing Thomas say his part of it out loud was the push I needed to finally finish this.

After months of drafting, cutting, and reworking, and after having it reviewed by trusted peers and a Wilson scholar to ensure I was being fair even as I rendered a harsh verdict, I sent it out. I was humbled that the folks at American Greatness were excited to publish it, and it ran this morning. I hope you will give it a read.

Read my full piece at American Greatness here.

This is a quick programming note for all of our paid and free subscribers! It’s that time of year — I’m heading out for a much-needed family vacation! Look for my normal (crazy) pace to resume in full swing starting Monday, June 22.

What does this mean for this Substack? It means that I am committed to making sure we post something at least once a day. Not sure what that will look like, but you can count on something daily.

Of course, this Substack is my hobby, so it could see more - but my first priority this week and next will be to recharge my batteries! Last June, the family traveled to Turkey and the Greek Isles, and my enthusiasm for the newness of the sites had me posting a lot. I’m going to try NOT to do that this time!

Mariel is a longtime California opinion journalist and former editorial board member at the Los Angeles Daily News, Southern California News Group, The Sacramento Bee, and Los Angeles Times. She now helps lead the Golden State Report, a new effort to reinvigorate serious public debate about Los Angeles and California.

Mariel and I come from different ends of California’s political spectrum, but we share a commitment to serious discussion and honest analysis. With ballots still being counted across the state, we spent nearly an hour breaking down what happened on Election Day, what has changed since then, and what it all means as we head toward November.

One of the biggest topics was the Los Angeles mayor’s race, where Nithya Raman has now overtaken Spencer Pratt for second place and appears headed for a runoff against incumbent Karen Bass. We discussed why that shift was not entirely surprising, what the late-count vote is telling us, and why Bass remains vulnerable despite finishing first.

We also spent considerable time discussing California’s election system, including the state’s lengthy vote-counting process, universal vote-by-mail system, and a pending Supreme Court case that could force major changes to how California conducts elections.

The governor’s race was another major focus. We examined why Steve Hilton successfully consolidated Republican support, why Tom Steyer appears unlikely to make the runoff despite spending enormous sums, and whether Xavier Becerra now enters the general election as the clear favorite.

Along the way, we discussed Kevin Kiley’s independent candidacy, Proposition 14 and California’s top-two primary system, the Marie Alvarado-Gil race, and the broader question of whether California voters are becoming increasingly frustrated with the status quo.

Most importantly, this wasn’t a shouting match. It was a conversation between two people who often disagree but believe voters deserve thoughtful analysis rather than partisan talking points.

If you’re interested in California politics, election analysis, and where the state may be headed next, I think you’ll find this discussion worthwhile.

CHAPTERS

0:00 — Introductions: Two different political perspectives
4:00 — Nithya Raman passes Spencer Pratt in the Los Angeles mayor’s race
10:00 — Why Karen Bass is facing voter dissatisfaction
17:00 — California’s election system and the late vote debate
21:00 — The Supreme Court case that could change California elections
25:00 — Why late ballots are breaking heavily toward Raman
28:00 — Kevin Kiley’s independent strategy
33:00 — Is Tom Steyer officially out of contention?
35:00 — How Republicans consolidated behind Steve Hilton
36:00 — The fascinating Marie Alvarado-Gil race
39:00 — Can Steve Hilton actually win statewide?
44:00 — Why Democratic voters rallied behind Xavier Becerra
50:00+ — What the June primary tells us about November
(Who knows if these times are 100% accurate? But the order is!)

Podcast and YouTube Links

You can listen to this on our Podcast Channel: “So, Does It Matter: The Podcast” on your favorite podcasting app. Or you can go straight here.

You can also watch this episode (and share it) over on YouTube here, or below.

This morning at 9 a.m. I will be participating in a Substack Live session with Mariel Garza of The Golden State Report. Join us if you can; if not, I will post the session for you to watch at your convenience. You should have received a calendar invite since we are now hosting this at SDIM. But the link to join is below as well! I will email a final reminder about an hour out from the event.

You already know me! But who, you ask, is Mariel?

I asked ChatGPT for a 200-word bio, which is below. But if you are looking for excitement, let me just say that Mariel and I have likely never voted for the same candidate for any office - ever. Maybe we’ll find out if that’s actually true.

Come join us!

On Mariel…

THE LINK

If you can’t join us live, I will post/send the video!

Jon

Below is our List of Top Ten Winners and Losers for the Week. This feature is available to all of our subscribers, free and paid. At the bottom of this post is our “Worst Week In California Politics” special feature. It's me, in rare form, on video, going on about why someone’s week sucked. It is below the paywall for our paid subscribers, though. Please support my independent calling of balls and strikes, and unlock lots of content by upgrading today! It’s only $7 a month (or $70 for an entire year).

SCRATCH THAT. FOR THIS SPECIAL EDITION, ALL READERS GET THE BIGGEST LOSER VIDEO FOR FREE - ENJOY!

(Publishing Note: I aspire to get this back to going up on Fridays - it’s been a busy election season!)

Subscribe now

Do you know about So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN? That’s our Podcast Channel, available on your favorite podcasting app, to listen to these posts on the go! Find this column, SPOKEN, here. You can also sign up for So, Does It Matter? THE PODCAST (here) to get all of our video content in audio form! Two channels to get all of our content anywhere!

⏱️ 5-minute read

Top Winners & Losers Last Week in the June election!

Two important caveats. Election results aren’t final, and I have “called” the race for Hilton, even though the media is lagging behind. And of course I could have dozens of winners and losers, so this is a winnowed list!

⬆️WINNERS: STATEWIDE CANDIDATES ADVANCING TO THE TOP TWO

California’s June 2 primary narrowed the field for the state’s highest offices and set the stage for November. The statewide matchups are: Governor: Xavier Becerra (D), Steve Hilton* (R); Lieutenant Governor: Fiona Ma (D), Gloria Romero (R); Attorney General: Rob Bonta (D), Michael Gates (R); Secretary of State: Shirley Weber (D), Don Wagner (R); Treasurer: Eleni Kounalakis (D), Jennifer Hawks (R); Controller: Malia Cohen (D), Herb Morgan (R); Insurance Commissioner: Jane Kim (D), Ben Allen (D); Superintendent of Public Instruction: Sonja Shaw (R), Richard Barrera (D). While ballots are still being counted, these candidates have secured spots in November’s general election and now begin the final phase of their statewide campaigns.

* I have called this race, even though AP, which the MSM relies upon, has not yet done so.

⬇️ LOSERS: MATT MAHAN AND TOM STEYER — TERRIBLE RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Few candidates spent more money for less political return than Tom Steyer and Matt Mahan. Steyer poured more than $200 million of his personal fortune into his gubernatorial campaign, only to come agonizingly close to advancing to November before falling short. For Mahan, the outcome was even more devastating. Despite raising and benefiting from tens of millions of dollars in support from Silicon Valley donors and independent expenditure committees, he failed to gain traction with voters and finished with less than four percent of the vote. California voters delivered a costly reminder that money can buy advertising, but it cannot buy electoral success.

⬇️ LOSERS - THOSE WHO VOTED FOR ERIC SWALWELL

No one imploded with the force of a supernova in politics in a bigger way than disgraced ex-candidate and ex-Congressman Eric Swalwell. Nevertheless, about 25,000 or so low-information voters appear to have voted for him. I suppose a few of these people could think Swalwell was set up, or that what he did was cool. Anyways, all of these people are losers. Maybe there would be fewer of them if we weren’t making it so damned easy to vote. I bet Swalwell voters wouldn’t take the time to go to the polls in person.

⬇️ LOSER: PROP. 14 — THE “TOP TWO” SYSTEM

Prop. 14 was sold to California voters in 2010 as a reform that would produce more moderate officeholders and more meaningful choices. Instead, the “top two” system has made campaigns more expensive, encouraged cynical gamesmanship, and failed to deliver moderation. California politics has only grown more polarized. Worse, the system pushes voters away from simply choosing their preferred candidate and toward calculating whether one party will be shut out of November. And in the general election, when most Californians vote, the result is often less choice, not more — including same-party runoffs like this year’s Insurance Commissioner race and the exclusion of minor-party candidates. Elections should not be about gaming the rules. Prop. 14 has failed.

⬆️WINNER: LA COUNCILMEMBER AND MAYORAL CANDIDATE NITHYA RAMAN

Late ballots in overwhelmingly Democratic Los Angeles broke heavily for Raman, likely propelling her into a runoff against embattled incumbent Mayor Karen Bass. Were those voters for Raman, against Bass, or simply determined to keep Republican Spencer Pratt out of the runoff? Probably some mix of all three — but the math is the math. If Raman can raise the funds to run a competitive general election campaign, Bass has a serious problem on her hands. Last night was a very good night for Nithya Raman.

⬇️ LOSER: STATE SENATOR MARIE ALVARADO-GIL

State Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil’s unusual political journey appears headed for a hard stop. In 2022, she was elected as a Democrat in a very red Senate district after five Republicans split the GOP vote, allowing two Democrats to advance to the November election. After taking office, she re-registered as a Republican and tried to persuade GOP voters that she belonged in their column. It did not work. Alexandra Duarte, a lifelong Republican, raised serious money and appears to have knocked Alvarado-Gil out of the top two. For an incumbent who changed parties to match her district, it appears most Republicans did not buy the sincerity of her conversion.

⬇️ LOSER: LOS ANGELES MAYOR KAREN BASS

When you are the incumbent Mayor and close to two-thirds of Angelenos say they want someone else, you are definitely a loser. Largely due to the insurgent candidacy of Spencer Pratt, Bass has been forced to run on her record, which is frankly pretty terrible. She would certainly have preferred Republican Pratt as her runoff opponent in this overwhelmingly Democratic city. Instead, she appears to have drawn hard-left Councilwoman Nithya Raman, setting up a nasty intra-party fight. Speaking of Pratt, it’s hard to call him a loser even though his candidacy appears over. But what a candidacy — exceeding all expectations!

⬆️WINNER: REPUBLICAN STATE SENATE CANDIDATE KRISTIE BRUCE-LANE

Kristie Bruce-Lane appears to have won a bruising Republican showdown in Senate District 40, the seat being vacated by term-limited Senate Republican Leader Brian Jones. Jones’ preferred successor was San Marcos Councilman Ed Musgrove, but Republican voters tilted toward Bruce-Lane, who had strong support from Assemblyman Carl DeMaio and Reform California. Bruce-Lane now appears headed to November against Democrat Mara Elliott in a district Republicans cannot take for granted but can certainly win. A Bruce-Lane victory this fall would send a hard-charging conservative to Sacramento — exactly the kind of Republican willing to take the fight directly to the Democratic supermajority.

⬇️ LOSER: CALIFORNIA’S LAX ELECTION PROCESS

California Democrats have become so obsessed with removing every conceivable barrier to voting that they’ve gone too far — stripping away the integrity and finality that a trustworthy election system demands. There is nothing wrong with voting requiring some effort. Voters should have to show up, cast a ballot in person, and get a result on election night. Instead, we get weeks of post-election counting that erodes public confidence with every passing day. Effort breeds investment. Accountability requires finality. California’s anything-goes election process delivers neither. Yes, you can make it too easy to vote - that’s a thing.

⬆️WINNERS: TAXPAYERS

It was a good night to be a California taxpayer. All around the state, voters are rejecting local tax measures — shooting down a hotel tax hike in LA City, a steep tax on second and corporate-owned homes in San Diego County, a business tax pegged to executive pay ratios in San Francisco, a parcel tax for general city services in Oakland, and a sales tax increase in Contra Costa County. Of course, some local tax measures are passing, but these high-profile losses foreshadow a tough road for tax measures on the November ballot. As for the LA County health care sales tax — it may yet limp across the finish line on late ballots, but if it does, it will have barely survived despite a massive funding advantage over the No side. Not exactly a mandate.

THE WORST WEEK IN CALIFORNIA POLITICS “AWARD” GOES TO…

Below is my weekly pithy video about the person in California politics who has had the worst week! You do NOT want to miss this rant — six minutes of pure Jon. Upgrade today!

Actually, this week there are two “bronze” level losers, a “silver” level loser, and then one “gold” level biggest loser of the week!

THANK YOU for being a paid subscriber! (or maybe being one soon?)

Who had the worst week in California politics last week?

You can listen to this video on our podcasting channel for all of our video content — So, Does It Matter? The Podcast - on your favorite podcast app. Or just go here.

You can watch or share this video on YouTube here.

This Sunday ICYMI edition is always free for all subscribers and visitors to this Substack page! Thanks for being a part of this look at CA politics!

THIS IS A GREAT E-MAIL TO FORWARD TO PEOPLE YOU THINK MIGHT ENJOY OUR CONTENT!

Today I have a feature opinion piece in the California Post (the graphic is about that). Much of the column is content that was in an earlier column on SDIM linked further below, but this column does have a fresh and alarming update on the LA Mayor’s race - right at the top. So click through HERE for that (no paywall).

BELOW ARE SIX STORIES FROM THIS WEEK THAT YOU MAY HAVE MISSED!

FOMO? There are half a dozen other items that aren’t highlighted above. But you can read them here.

One More Video… A Podcast Interview With Susan Shelly of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association…

On This Date In 1776…

THE FIRST STEP TOWARD AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE

On June 7, 1776, the march toward American independence entered a decisive new phase when Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee rose before the Second Continental Congress and introduced a resolution declaring that the colonies “are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.”

While Americans celebrate Independence Day on July 4, the road to that historic moment did not begin there. Lee’s resolution was the official starting point of the process that would ultimately produce the Declaration of Independence.

At the time, the colonies had already been at war with Great Britain for more than a year. Yet many leaders still hoped for reconciliation with the Crown. Lee’s proposal forced Congress to confront the central question: Should the colonies remain part of the British Empire, or become a nation of their own?

Congress postponed a final vote to allow several colonies time to instruct their delegates. In the meantime, a committee led by Thomas Jefferson was tasked with drafting a document explaining why independence was necessary.

Over the following weeks, delegates debated, negotiated, and refined both the case for independence and the principles upon which a new nation would be founded. Congress voted for independence on July 2, 1776, and approved the final text of the Declaration of Independence on July 4.

But it all began with Lee’s resolution on June 7.

The Declaration of Independence was not a single day’s work. It was the culmination of a deliberate process that began when Congress first formally considered the idea of the American colonies becoming free and independent states.

This is a fun 2 1/2 minute video narrated by… RIchard Henry Lee! (Well, the AI version…) Courtesy of The White House!

This Saturday feature, which is a labor of love for me, is packed with amazing content. It’s very popular. For those of you who subscribe ($70/year, $7/month), this column is a thank you for your support of my independent work. Below the paywall are a lot of interesting things to read that you might not find online, but I did. Things you will want to read!

But first, let’s preview my new California Post column “above the paywall” and give you a free link to read it!

THANK YOU for being part of this project and for putting a spotlight on California politics!

Subscribe now

The race for second place in the L.A. mayor’s contest has shifted dramatically since Election Night, with Nithya Raman cutting Pratt’s lead to just 20,672 votes — and more than 200,000 ballots still to count.

Los Angeles County is still counting ballots — and the race for second place in the mayor’s contest is tightening fast, in ways that should alarm anyone hoping the city is ready for a change in direction.

Spencer Pratt led comfortably on Election Night. Today, that lead has been slashed to just 20,672 votes, with well over 200,000 ballots still to count. In Friday’s update alone, Raman netted more than 12,000 votes on Pratt — receiving more than twice as many votes as he did in a single ballot drop.

In my full California Post column, I break down the latest numbers in detail — and what they mean for Pratt, for City Councilwoman Nithya Raman, and for the future direction of Los Angeles.

The broader point is not simply about one mayoral race.

It is about what happens when a common-sense, solutions-oriented candidate runs in a city that may not yet be ready to change course. Pratt’s campaign has focused on quality of life, public safety, homelessness, and basic competence at City Hall. Those are not fringe issues. They are the things Angelenos say they care about most. And yet, the late-ballot trend is running hard against him.

If Pratt cannot make the runoff, some Angelenos may decide the city is beyond saving — and start calling U-Haul.

I also look at the governor’s race, where Steve Hilton appears strongly positioned to advance against Xavier Becerra — and where Tom Steyer’s path has gone from difficult to mathematically improbable. Hilton leads Steyer by more than 336,000 votes, with roughly 3.1 million ballots still left statewide. Barring a dramatic and unlikely collapse, California voters may get something they won’t have in the L.A. mayor’s race: a real debate between two candidates offering fundamentally different visions for the state’s future.

California elections don’t end on Election Night anymore. They unfold over days and weeks, as late ballots quietly reshape results that voters thought were settled. There is no evidence of fraud in this count. But when outcomes shift this dramatically after Election Day, public confidence takes a hit — and that matters too.

👉 Read my full column in the California Post HERE. (No Paywall)

Want More?

OK, this column is like a big tree. You can see only some of it above the ground. But all of the roots go deep underneath…Below the paywall is SO MUCH MORE.

There’s a free trial - try it out and read all kinds of stuff, curated as a special thank you to our now 600+ paid subscribers!

If you appreciate my work here, support me. That’s how you keep voices like mine around!

Read more

MARIEL AND I HAD SERIOUS TECHNICAL ISSUES CAUSING US TO SCRUB THE LIVE CHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO AT 2PM THIS AFTERNOON. WE ARE GOING TO TRY AGAIN MONDAY MORNING AT 9AM. THIS TIME I WILL PLAY HOST.

Monday at 9 am I will be participating in a Substack Live session with Mariel Garza of The Golden State Report. Join us if you can; if not, I will post the session for you to watch at your convenience. You should have received a calendar invite since we are now hosting this at SDIM. But the link to join is below as well! I will email a final reminder about an hour out from the event.

We had over 400 people tune in live for the post-election panel yesterday, and over 2400 people watched it afterward. So awesome!

You already know me! But who, you ask, is Mariel?

I asked ChatGPT for a 200-word bio, which is below. But if you are looking for excitement, let me just say that Mariel and I have likely never voted for the same candidate for any office - ever. Maybe we’ll find out if that’s actually true.

Come join us!

On Mariel…

THE LINK

Have a great weekend. Wonder if any government workers will be in over the weekend, you know, counting ballots? Probably not. It’s nice out!

Jon

Typically, our afternoon content is either reserved for our paid subscribers or exclusive to those of you who financially support this effort. Often on Friday afternoons, we lift the paywall, like today! Enjoy!

You can subscribe for FREE to get most of our content delivered to your inbox. A PAID subscription is $7 a month or $70 a year, and it gets you access to ALL of my stuff (like this full column). Why subscribe? Because now more than ever, you need someone calling balls and strikes, and who isn’t owned by interest groups.

Subscribe now

You can also listen to this post on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It is available on your favorite podcast app. And here.

🕒 5 min read

The Debt Clock Keeps Spinning

America’s gross national debt has now climbed past $39 trillion, a figure so large that most of us have long since lost the ability to truly comprehend it.

Over the past year alone, the debt increased by nearly $3 trillion — an average of more than $8 billion per day. Despite endless campaign promises about fiscal responsibility, neither political party has shown much willingness to confront the problem seriously.

Republicans campaign on spending restraint and too often abandon it when handed power. Democrats continue to demand new spending while showing little serious interest in reforming the entitlement programs driving the long-term crisis. The result is a debt trajectory that continues to worsen regardless of which party controls Washington.

The official projections are already alarming. According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal debt held by the public is expected to climb from roughly 100 percent of GDP today to about 175 percent by 2056.

That should be enough to command the attention of every policymaker in America.

But according to one of the nation’s most respected budget experts, even those frightening projections may be far too optimistic.

A Baseline Built On Fantasy

Jessica Riedl of the Brookings Institution has now provided a sobering follow-up to her recently released Spending, Taxes, and Deficits: A Book of Charts, which I wrote about recently right here (a ‘must-read’). Her new analysis focuses on a deceptively simple question: what if Washington’s already alarming debt projections are still too optimistic?

Riedl is not some fringe commentator making sensational predictions. She is widely regarded as one of Washington’s foremost experts on federal budgeting and fiscal policy. Her warning is not that the debt outlook is bad. Her warning is that the numbers most people cite may substantially understate just how bad it is.

The issue lies in how the Congressional Budget Office is required to construct its long-term projections. By law, CBO generally projects future spending and revenue based on current law rather than on what Congress is actually likely to do.

That may sound reasonable. In practice, it can produce assumptions that many observers view as unrealistic.

The baseline assumes temporary tax cuts expire, federal spending shrinks significantly as a share of the economy, smaller entitlement programs are constrained, and current tariff policies remain in place indefinitely. Those assumptions may satisfy budget rules, but they do not accurately reflect the behavior Congress has demonstrated over many years.

That is the central warning of her analysis.

The Real Numbers May Be Much Higher

Riedl’s research attempts to estimate what happens if Washington largely continues its current habits rather than following the assumptions embedded in the official baseline.

The results are sobering.

Instead of debt rising to approximately 175 percent of GDP by 2056, it could reach roughly 243 percent. In practical terms, projected federal borrowing over the next three decades increases from about $138 trillion to approximately $200 trillion.

That is an additional $62 trillion in borrowing beyond what is commonly reported.

To put that in perspective, $62 trillion is larger than the entire annual economic output of the United States today.

What makes the analysis particularly troubling is that it does not rely on a catastrophic recession, a military conflict, or an unforeseen national emergency. It is largely based on the assumption that Washington will continue to do what it has repeatedly done: extend temporary policies, avoid politically painful spending reductions, and postpone difficult fiscal decisions.

In other words, the risk comes not from a crisis. The risk comes from business as usual.

The Interest Rate Trap

There is another major vulnerability lurking beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office assumes that despite this mountain of federal borrowing, average interest rates on government debt remain relatively manageable over the coming decades. Specifically, the long-term projections assume rates remain around 4.2 percent.

That assumption matters enormously because interest costs compound rapidly as debt accumulates.

If rates were just one percentage point higher — 5.2 percent rather than 4.2 percent — the debt picture worsens dramatically. Under that scenario, debt levels could exceed 300 percent of GDP by 2056.

A seemingly modest increase in interest rates would add roughly $57 trillion more to the debt burden.

At that point, the federal government risks entering a vicious cycle in which borrowing drives up interest costs, which then require even more borrowing to cover them.

The debt itself becomes one of the government’s largest and fastest-growing expenses.

So, Does It Matter?

One can certainly debate the assumptions in Riedl’s analysis. Long-term economic forecasting is inherently uncertain, and no one can predict the next 30 years with precision.

But her broader point is difficult to dismiss.

Washington’s official debt projections are already alarming. If those projections depend on policy changes that Congress is unlikely to make, then the nation’s fiscal outlook may be considerably worse than most Americans realize.

For decades, elected officials in both parties have found it easier to promise benefits than to pay for them. The bill for those decisions continues to grow.

The most unsettling aspect of Riedl’s warning is not that America faces a debt problem. Most Americans already know that.

It is that even the scary numbers may be understating the scale of the crisis.

If Washington will not make hard decisions when the debt is $39 trillion, why should anyone believe it will suddenly find discipline when the number is $50 trillion, $75 trillion, or $100 trillion?

That is the real warning here. The debt crisis is not just approaching. Washington is already choosing it.

Ask your Member of Congress. Ask your United States Senator. Ask your President.

What are you doing about this?

Today at 2 pm I will be participating in a Substack Live session with Mariel Garza of The Golden State Report. Join us if you can; if not, I will post the session for you to watch at your convenience. Mariel is hosting it, so I can’t send a typical calendar invite. But the link to join is below! Again, today at 2 p.m.!

You already know me! But who, you ask, is Mariel?

I asked ChatGPT for a 200-word bio, which is below. But if you are looking for excitement, let me just say that Mariel and I have likely never voted for the same candidate for any office - ever. Maybe we’ll find out if that’s actually true.

Come join us!

On Mariel…

THE LINK

Paid subscribers get our exclusive “One More Thing” extra segment with our guest. Susan talks about something near and dear to her heart…

Subscribe now

🎙️ Straight Talk: Susan Shelley On Tax Revolts, Steve Hilton, And The Fight For California

Few people follow California public policy as closely as Susan Shelley.

As Vice President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and a longtime columnist for Southern California News Group, Susan has built a reputation for digging into the details of complicated policy debates and explaining what they actually mean for taxpayers, homeowners, businesses, and voters.

With California’s June election now behind us and November’s ballot already taking shape, I invited Susan to join me for a conversation about what voters may have been trying to tell Sacramento.

We discussed the defeat of several local tax increase measures, why voters appear increasingly skeptical of government requests for more money, and what the results could mean for the growing list of tax and bond measures headed toward the November ballot.

We also examined the controversial billionaire tax proposal, concerns about future wealth taxes, the implications of Proposition 19, and whether taxpayers are finally reaching a breaking point after years of rising costs and expanding government spending.

Finally, we turned to politics. Susan shared her thoughts on Steve Hilton’s first-place finish in the governor’s race, Spencer Pratt’s surprising impact on the Los Angeles mayoral contest, and whether California voters may be more open to political change than many observers believe.

As always, Susan came prepared with facts, context, and plenty of strong opinions.

Topics Covered

0:00 — Introduction and Susan Shelley’s background
2:10 — Why Election Day was a surprisingly strong night for taxpayers
3:00 — Los Angeles Measure ER and the politics of tax increases
4:15 — The streetlight assessment controversy
8:20 — Tax measures defeated across California
9:15 — The reality behind claims of federal healthcare cuts
10:45 — San Diego’s vacant homes tax and other local tax battles
12:20 — Why San Francisco voters rejected the CEO tax
15:00 — The billionaire tax proposal and its broader implications
17:10 — Hidden provisions that could pave the way for future wealth taxes
19:00 — Prop. 19, inherited property, and tax policy
21:10 — Steve Hilton’s strong finish in the governor’s race
22:10 — November ballot measures and the taxpayer battles ahead
22:50 — The financial risks of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics
24:00 — Spencer Pratt’s impact on the Los Angeles mayoral race
26:00 — Karen Bass and the road to November
27:00 — Will Democrats run against Trump instead of defending their record?
28:30 — Susan’s prescription for fixing California’s affordability crisis
29:10 — Where to follow Susan’s work

A Few Links:

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association website.
Susan’s Southern California News Group columns. ($)
Susan on X.

And always: Jon Fleischman on X

Listen To This On Your Favorite Podcasting App!

You can also listen to this post — along with my California Our morning content is free for all subscribers and guests! You can also listen to this post — along with my California Post column — on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? PODCAST. It’s available on your favorite podcasting app. You can listen directly here.

Or play it here:

Oh, here’s this episode on YouTube!

Wait, there’s more!

Below the paywall, for our paid subscribers, is “One More Thing” with Susan Shelley. You don’t want to miss this!

Read more

Typically, our afternoon content is either reserved for our paid subscribers or exclusive to those of you who financially support this effort. Today, the column is available to all readers, but below the paywall are several additional “must-see” on-topic political cartoons!

You can subscribe for FREE to get most of our content delivered to your inbox. A PAID subscription is $7 a month or $70 a year, and it gets you access to ALL of my stuff (like this full column). Why subscribe? Because now more than ever, you need someone calling balls and strikes, and who isn’t owned by interest groups.

Subscribe now

You can also listen to this post on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It is available on your favorite podcast app. And here.

🕒 5 min read

Election Day No Longer Means Election Day

Tuesday was Election Day in California.

Or was it?

The polls closed Tuesday night, yet millions of ballots remain uncounted. Some races will not be settled for days. Others may not be settled for weeks. Californians have grown used to this ritual, but that does not make it normal. Election Day has slowly become Election Week, Election Month, and sometimes Counting Month.

California law currently allows vote-by-mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day and still be counted, so long as they are postmarked by Election Day. For the June 2 primary, that means mailed ballots can arrive as late as June 9. Because every active registered voter automatically receives a live ballot, the volume of mailed ballots is enormous.

The result is a system in which the public is told the election has ended while the decisive work continues long after the polls close.

As voters once again wait for final results, confidence in the process continues to erode. Now California’s system faces two developments that could fundamentally change this waiting game as soon as November. One has already happened. The other could happen within weeks.

The Postal Service Changed The Rules

The first change came from the U.S. Postal Service.

Earlier this year, the Postal Service clarified that mail is not guaranteed to receive a postmark on the day it is deposited. Instead, a postmark may be applied later, when the mail is processed through a postal facility.

That may sound like a technical detail. It is not. California’s election system depends heavily on postmarks. The postmark serves as the legal proof that a ballot was mailed on time. If a voter drops a ballot in the mail on Election Day, but the Postal Service applies the postmark later because of processing delays, the voter may have done everything right while still creating uncertainty about whether the ballot satisfies California’s legal deadline.

This concern is no longer theoretical. In the weeks before the June primary, California election officials warned voters not to wait until Election Day to mail their ballots. KQED put it bluntly: “Don’t Rely on USPS, Officials Say.” The San Francisco Chronicle likewise reported that ballots mailed on Election Day might not receive an Election Day postmark, potentially making them invalid.

Heck, the USPS actually now has this warning in print on their website:

That is the problem. California relies on postmarks as proof of timeliness. The Postal Service has now made clear that postmarks do not necessarily prove when mail entered the system. When an election deadline depends on a postal practice the Postal Service no longer guarantees, the legal and practical foundation begins to wobble.

And that may not even be the biggest change coming.

The Supreme Court May Soon Change Everything

The second development is now before the United States Supreme Court.

In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Court is considering whether federal law permits states to count ballots that arrive after Election Day. The case began in Mississippi, where state law allows ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted even if they arrive several days later.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal law requires ballots in federal races to be received by Election Day. Mississippi appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. A decision is expected this month.

Based on the questions asked during oral argument, the Court appeared skeptical of the idea that federal Election Day can mean one thing for voters who cast ballots in person and something else for ballots arriving later by mail. Several justices seemed focused on the core question: if Congress established a single Election Day for federal elections, can states continue counting ballots that were not actually received until after that day?

That does not guarantee the outcome. The Supreme Court can always surprise people. But the questioning strongly suggested that the justices are taking seriously the argument that Election Day is supposed to be a firm legal deadline, not the beginning of a post-election arrival window.

California Could Be Forced To Choose

If the Court rules that ballots in federal races must be received by Election Day, California could face a dramatic choice.

The state could require all vote-by-mail ballots to arrive by Election Day. Or it could try to run two systems at the same time: one rule for federal contests and another for state and local races.

That would be a mess.

Imagine telling voters that their ballot arrived in time to count for Governor, State Senate, city council, or a ballot measure, but too late to count for President or Congress. That kind of split system would be confusing for voters, burdensome for county election officials, and almost certain to deepen public skepticism.

The larger issue is simple: when does an election actually end?

For generations, Election Day represented a shared civic deadline. The polls closed, voting ended, and the country moved toward a result. California has stretched that concept almost beyond recognition. Ballots are mailed out weeks before Election Day, arrive after Election Day, and are counted for weeks afterward.

That system may soon collide with federal law.

So, Does It Matter?

This matters because California’s election system rests on assumptions that may no longer hold.

It assumes postmarks can reliably prove when ballots were mailed. The Postal Service has already undercut that assumption. It assumes ballots can continue arriving after Election Day and still be counted in federal races. The Supreme Court may soon reject that assumption.

Either change would be significant. Together, they could force California to rethink the structure of its mail-ballot system before the November election.

The point is not that mail voting must disappear. The point is that deadlines matter. Voters deserve a system in which Election Day means something clear, fixed, and enforceable.

Right now, California tells the public the election is over while ballots continue to arrive, totals continue to shift, and confidence continues to decline. If the Postal Service and the Supreme Court are both moving toward a harder deadline, Sacramento may soon have no choice but to confront what many voters already sense: an election system cannot maintain trust forever if Election Day no longer feels like the day the election actually ends.

More Reading…

Below Are Three Great Political Cartoons…

For paid subscribers as a thank you!

Read more

Our morning content is free for all subscribers and guests! Usually our afternoon content is behind a paywall, but not when I am previewing a California Post column… If you are not yet a paid subscriber, consider upgrading — you are missing a significant portion of what we produce each week, and your support makes it possible. If you want to get it all and support my efforts, please consider a paid subscription!

Subscribe now

You can also listen to this post — along with my California Post column — on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It is available on your favorite podcast app. And you can listen to it here.

Two Races. Two Accountability Moments. Zero Excuses Left.

The June election has delivered two fall matchups that California Democrats were not expecting to have to fight: Steve Hilton against Xavier Becerra for governor, and Spencer Pratt against Karen Bass for mayor of Los Angeles.

Neither race is going to be polite.

For years, Democrats have run California and its largest cities — the Legislature, the agencies, the budgets — and then acted as if the results were somehow beyond their control. That dodge gets a lot harder now.

Becerra is not a fresh start. He is the continuation candidate. The same ideology, the same governing class, and the same excuses — while carrying the full weight of the Newsom era on his back.

In Los Angeles, Pratt has done something that civic groups, editorial boards, and political insiders failed to do for years: force Karen Bass to defend her record. Her first term has been defined by homelessness, public safety failures, bureaucratic paralysis, and the Palisades fire disaster. Bass expected a reelection campaign. She is getting a trial.

Hilton and Pratt face real math. California is blue. Los Angeles is bluer. Democrats have registration, money, unions, and institutional inertia on their side.

But Democrats also have something else.

The record.

And the record is ugly.

👉 Read my full California Post column HERE. (No Paywall)

Subscribe now

You can also listen to this post on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It is available on your favorite podcast app. And here.

🕒 1 hour 25 minutes

You can see the chapters below with timestamps if you want to jump to specific areas of interest.

If you missed this morning’s live discussion, the full replay is now available.

I was joined by Lance Christensen of the California Policy Center and political strategist Matt Klink for a wide-ranging look at California’s primary election results — from the Governor’s race to Los Angeles politics to congressional contests and key ballot measures.

As I noted at the start of the broadcast, California is still very much in the “fifth or sixth inning” of election counting. Millions of ballots remain to be processed statewide, so no serious analysis should pretend every race is finished.

But the early returns already tell us a lot.

Steve Hilton appears to have gotten the fall matchup he wanted against Xavier Becerra. Tom Steyer’s expensive campaign badly underperformed. Republicans appear likely to have a real top-of-the-ticket candidate in November, which matters not just for the Governor’s race, but for turnout in competitive congressional and legislative contests.

We also spent a lot of time on Los Angeles, where Spencer Pratt has turned what could have been a dull mayoral campaign into one of the most fascinating political stories in the country. Karen Bass is still the favorite, but Pratt has already forced the race to revolve around homelessness, public safety, city dysfunction, and whether Los Angeles voters are ready to keep rewarding failure.

We also discussed Democratic Socialists in Los Angeles politics, key City Attorney and City Council races, congressional races to watch, and tax measures that may become major fights heading into November.

CHAPTERS
00:00 — Why California Is Still In The “Sixth Inning” Of Election Counting
04:30 — How Many Ballots Remain Outstanding?
08:00 — Steve Hilton, Xavier Becerra, Tom Steyer And The Governor’s Race
15:00 — Can Hilton Make California Competitive?
22:00 — Matt Klink Joins The Discussion
28:00 — Spencer Pratt Shakes Up The Los Angeles Mayor’s Race
36:45 — L.A. City Attorney, City Council And The Democratic Socialists
45:30 — Congressional And Legislative Races Across California
61:00 — San Diego Politics And Key Legislative Fights
70:00 — Tax Measures And The November Anti-Tax Dynamic
82:00 — Final Thoughts: California’s Long Count Continues

Thank you to everyone who joined live, commented, and helped make the conversation better.

Now we wait for California’s slow-motion election count to continue — possibly right up until we are buying hamburgers and fireworks for the Fourth of July.

A Last Minute Reminder!

Join us at 10:30 this morning as we sort through statewide races, local contests, ballot measures, surprises, emerging trends, and the early winners and losers from Election Day.

Our panel includes:

• Jon Fleischman, Founder, So, Does It Matter?

• Lance Christensen, VP, California Policy Center

• Susan Shelley, VP, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

• Matt Klink, President of Klink Campaigns, and CA Political Expert

Date: Wednesday, June 3

Time: 10:30 a.m. – Noon

Bring your questions and observations. The live chat will be open throughout the event.

Click here to watch it live. (Goes live at 10:25 a.m. or so.)

(Later on, the video will be sent out for those who cannot watch it live…)