Aggregator
The unlikely state taking jobs from Hollywood in latest blow to ailing industry
Newsom Signs New Election Codes Into Law Ahead Of Statewide Primary
Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times,
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law additions to the election code on Wednesday, which his office says will protect state elections against any attempts of political interference by the Trump administration and its allies ahead of the November midterm elections.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom at a conference in Belem, Para State, Brazil, on Nov. 11, 2025. Mauro Pimentel/AFP via Getty ImagesThe new law, Senate Bill 73, authored by state Democratic Sens. Sabrina Cervantes and Tom Umberg, prohibits any person - including federal agents - from accessing voter rolls or election technology without a court order. It also restricts law enforcement from disrupting election workers except in public safety emergencies and makes it a crime to knowingly remove voted ballots from the custody of election officials.
Newsom signed the election legislation five days ahead of California's June 2 statewide primary, where a crowded and closely watched governor's race is already underway.
The new law took immediate effect.
"We have to step up, and we have to draw the line. We have to clarify the rules of engagement," Newsom told reporters before signing the legislation. "It's a warning to the folks out there that think they can do the bidding of the Trump administration."
The White House pushed back against allegations from Newsom's office that it would be involved in disrupting "lawful election administration" and sending "armed law enforcement to intimidate voters or steal ballots." Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said President Donald Trump remains committed to ensuring that all Americans have full confidence in election administration.
Newsom framed the signing as a direct response to what he called "legitimate anxiety" about the administration's actions - some of which he said have already played out in California and across other Democratic-led states. Trump administration officials say they have no plans to send immigration law enforcement agents to polling locations - a concern raised by several Democratic secretaries of state.
Newsom said he was unconvinced by those assurances.
"I expect the worst with Trump because he's done the worst," he said at a news conference Wednesday. He added that "there's no rules anymore with the Trump administration," and that California had to "be prepared for everything."
White House chief of staff Susie Wiles told Vanity Fair last year that any suggestion Trump would deploy the military to suppress voting was "categorically false."
Newsom has called the new law only the first piece of a broader "mosaic" of legislation that his administration plans to advance ahead of the November general election.
The signing of the law comes one week before California's June 2 primary, where high-profile candidates across the state are vying for gubernatorial nominations in a primary season with national implications.
Under California's open primary system, the top two candidates who receive the most votes - regardless of party - advance to the November ballot.
The new law came after a months-long confrontation between state officials and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican running for governor, who in early 2026 seized more than 650,000 ballots from a November 2025 special election on congressional redistricting.
Bianco claimed he was investigating allegations of a vote-count discrepancy, but county election officials and California Attorney General Rob Bonta disputed those claims. The California Supreme Court ultimately ordered Bianco to halt the investigation.
SB 73 directly addresses that by making such ballot seizures a criminal offense going forward.
While Bianco says he is a supporter of the president, he has never been endorsed by Trump. Trump in April endorsed Steve Hilton in the governor's race.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Tyler Durden Thu, 05/28/2026 - 20:55High school counselor learns fate for sexually abusing 16-year-old boy
Trainer Richard Fahey’s assistant gets brutally bucked by racehorse — and sent flying over the track wall
Shady immigration attorneys laughed off the law — now they’ll have to pay for their asylum games
Dodgers’ Shohei Ohtani receives highest praise from former MVP
3-year-old California girl hospitalized with acute kidney failure after eating at Costa Mesa spot amid E. coli outbreak, lawsuit claims
Jets rookie first-rounder Kenyon Sadiq sidelined for OTAs after ‘minor procedure’
Patrick Roy ‘deeply saddened’ by death of former teammate Claude Lemieux
Monica McNutt pushes back on Becky Hammon’s polarizing Jalen Brunson Knicks take
A.J. Ewing’s glove quickly becoming difference-maker for Mets
Anti-ICE mob unleashes another round of twisted taunts in clashes with feds at Newark’s Delaney Hall
Tyler Adams not sweating USMNT captaincy call
California labor boss calls arrest of woman who accused her husband of sex assault ‘karma’
Getty Center teases new plans that will change the way visitors enter forever — as legendary architect’s firm tapped for 1-year closure transformation
Frances Tiafoe’s tennis racket stolen after French Open win — but it gets returned after viral post
Nick Bosa reveals Bosa brothers reunion plans amid 49ers rumors
Missouri Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To New Congressional Map That Boosts Republicans
Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,
The Missouri Supreme Court on May 27 unanimously rejected a constitutional challenge to Missouri's congressional redistricting plan that the state Legislature approved last year.
The floor of the Missouri Senate is seen during a filibuster in Jefferson City, Mo., on Sept. 12, 2025. Michael B. Thomas/Getty ImagesMissouri's delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives currently has six Republicans and two Democrats. The new map, which supporters call the "Missouri First Map," is expected to result in Republicans gaining one seat.
The Show Me state's high court affirmed a circuit court ruling that dismissed a lawsuit filed by the state branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
Missouri argued that Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, had full legal authority to call the extraordinary session of the Missouri General Assembly at which the redistricting plan was approved.
The NAACP contended that Kehoe lacked authority under Article IV, Section 9 of the Missouri Constitution to call the session, the Missouri Supreme Court said in its new opinion.
That state constitutional provision reads: "The governor shall, at the commencement of each session of the general assembly, at the close of his term of office, and at such other times as he may deem necessary, give to the general assembly information as to the state of the government, and shall recommend to its consideration such measures as he shall deem necessary and expedient.
"On extraordinary occasions he may convene the general assembly by proclamation, wherein he shall state specifically each matter on which action is deemed necessary."
The circuit court rejected the NAACP's arguments and determined that this issue was political in nature and should be resolved by the governor, as opposed to the judiciary.
The NAACP appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in finding for the state and various state officials. The group said Article IV, Section 9, requires that an extraordinary occasion must exist before the governor may use his discretion to convoke the General Assembly and advise legislative action.
The Missouri Supreme Court disagreed.
"The plain language of Article IV, Section 9 gives the governor discretion to determine when an extraordinary occasion has arisen and to call an extraordinary session," the court said.
Contrary to the NAACP's assertions, that constitutional provision "does not include language suggesting the governor's discretion to call an extraordinary session is limited in any way," the court added.
The new ruling came after the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously upheld the state's 2025 redistricting plan on May 12 in separate litigation.
"Drawing maps establishing congressional districts is a political process, involving policy decisions that are political in nature, best left to elected representatives and the citizens of this state, not judges," the state supreme court said at that time.
"Courts are tasked with deciding only the legality, not the prudence, of a congressional district map."
On April 29, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v. Callais that race may not be the predominant, overriding reason for how congressional district lines are drawn. The case focused on Louisiana's decision to add a majority-black district after a lower court had said omitting the district would violate the federal Voting Rights Act.
That law generally prohibits race-based discrimination in voting practices. The nation's highest court held that lower courts had been misapplying the non-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act by requiring states "to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids."
The Callais ruling escalated a nationwide battle, underway since last year, after President Donald Trump urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to protect his party's narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives by moving up the redistricting process. Normally, redistricting only takes place after the U.S. census every 10 years.
The Epoch Times reached out for comment on the Missouri Supreme Court's new ruling to the office of Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway and the NAACP. No replies were received by publication time.
Stacy Robinson contributed to this report.
Tyler Durden Thu, 05/28/2026 - 20:05