-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
- Democrats finishing 1-2 would give Trump more fuel to fire up his MAGA base with false claims of rigged elections.
- Voter fraud claims could test a new California law meant to protect real election integrity and trust.
If the last few weeks have shown us anything, it’s that the gubernatorial primary is an unexpectedly close race among a trio of unlikely leaders: MAGA Republican Steve Hilton, and Democrats Xavier Becerra and Tom Steyer.
Though President Trump endorsed Hilton, a former Fox News host, a Hilton loss may be just what Trump wants — more fuel to fire up his MAGA base with false claims of rigged elections.
“Whether Hilton finishes first, second, or third, Trump will declare with zero evidence that there is voter fraud,” Matt Barreto told me. He’s a professor of political science at UCLA and a founder of its Voting Rights Project, meant to promote free and fair elections.
Follow live updates, analysis and highlights from 2026 election day’s key races, such as California governor, Los Angeles mayor, L.A. City Council and more.
And since California will probably take days or weeks to count all the ballots, a tight race will be fertile ground for those fraudulent fraud claims. Trump has already started, clearly planning to use our primary to further his push to assert federal control of state-run elections.
“You have a really rigged vote in California,” Trump said last week, when asked about Hilton and Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt, another unlikely right-wing contender. “California’s one of the most dishonest states for voting.”
California is not, of course, dishonest in its voting, and Trump has whined about elections for so long that this rhetoric might elicit little more than a shrug from most. But California elections matter at this pivotal moment only months before the midterms. Fraud claims here will further erode trust in our electoral system and could provide Trump with ammunition for interference across the country.
Voter fraud claims may also test a new California law meant to protect real election integrity and trust — a law (Senate Bill 73, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last week) that has received little notice but one that could provide a model of protection for the rest of the U.S. It stops law enforcement agents, including federal agents, from “providing unauthorized access, disruption, modification, or seizure of voter rolls, voter lists, or certified voting technology,” without a court order.
Call it the Sheriff Chad Bianco Act.
Bianco, another MAGA gubernatorial hopeful, seized hundreds of thousands of ballots from a recent election, claiming he was investigating the kind of wrongdoing Trump constantly alleges without proof. State Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana), a former federal prosecutor, said the warrant Bianco obtained from a friendly judge was “woefully deficient.”
So Umberg helped pass the measure to “protect the integrity of California elections” from “rogue law enforcement officials,” he said.
And he’s not just talking about Bianco.
“I am worried about interference in the election by federal authorities,” Umberg said. “I believe Donald Trump when he says, ‘I’m going to interfere in the election.’”
Umberg is so concerned that he has two other bills in the works he hopes will be law by November. One would stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from being present at polling places. The other would make it illegal for anyone running for a third term as president to appear on the California ballot.
The buildup of fraud claims around California elections and the pushback from legislators such as Umberg is a background battle that hasn’t received much attention, but one that is real and consequential.
Trump, through demands for voter rolls by the U.S. Department of Justice, the promotion of the SAVE Act, vague threats of ICE or other federal agents at polls, and the placement of election deniers in key federal rolls, has gutted safeguards for voting on the national level.
States have been slow to meet the threat, largely waiting for November to see how it plays out. California, to its credit, isn’t so complacent.
The strange circumstances of this particular California election may be a test for both sides. Barreto, the UCLA voting expert, said he thinks “Hilton has the highest probability of finishing first on Tuesday with Becerra close by in second, and Steyer in third.”
But that could — and probably would — change as more ballots are counted.
By Thursday, Barreto said, it’s probable (but far from certain) that Becerra is in the lead and Hilton is second.
“There will definitely be millions more ballots counted on Wednesday and Thursday and they will be disproportionately Democratic and contribute to both Becerra and Steyer numbers,” he said.
Maybe pushing Steyer into second? Again, a long shot. But possible.
Democrats have been holding on to their ballots until the last minute this year, with a huge number waiting until just the last few days to vote. It’s possible (though unlikely) that by sheer numbers, Democratic voters will propel both Steyer and Becerra toward November.
We do know that Republicans, despite their smaller numbers, have been voting, and trusting the postal service with their ballots this time around at a fairly high rate. That’s despite Trump’s claims that mail-in voting is inherently fraudulent.
So at the same time that we are expecting a big influx of Democratic ballots in coming days, Republicans may be closer to their voting peak, meaning Hilton’s numbers could top out on election night.
If Hilton doesn’t make the top three, after having been in the lead during in-person voting, MAGA will most certainly lose its collective mind.
And Trump will have something just as good as a Republican governor in the Golden State — “proof” we cheated.
More to Read
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that President Trump’s endorsement of Republican candidate Steve Hilton in California’s gubernatorial primary is a paradoxical asset for Trump because a Hilton loss would give Trump a fresh opportunity to claim, without evidence, that the election was “rigged” against a MAGA ally.[1][3]
It further contends that Trump’s public insistence that California is “one of the most dishonest states for voting” is part of a long‑running strategy to erode confidence in state‑run elections and build a political case for greater federal control over how states conduct voting.[1][3][4]
The piece suggests that California’s slow, ballot‑by‑ballot counting process, combined with a tight three‑way contest among Hilton, Democrat Xavier Becerra and Democrat Tom Steyer, will create a narrative opening for Trump and his allies to allege fraud as late‑counted ballots—disproportionately Democratic—shift the standings after election night.[1][4][5]
It highlights expert analysis indicating that Hilton may lead on election night but could fall behind Becerra, and possibly Steyer, as more mail ballots are tallied, making a MAGA backlash over “stolen” votes likely if Hilton drops out of contention after an early lead.[4][5]
The article maintains that Trump’s fraud rhetoric is not supported by evidence and notes that, despite years of claims about mail‑in ballot manipulation, Republican voters in California are now using mail voting at relatively high rates, undercutting the narrative that the method is inherently suspect.[4][5]
It presents California Senate Bill 73—restricting law‑enforcement access to voter rolls and voting systems without a valid court order—as an overdue safeguard prompted by Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure of ballots in a past election, which critics described as based on a deficient warrant and emblematic of “rogue” interventions justified by unproven fraud claims.[3]
The piece portrays SB 73 as a potential model for other states, arguing that in an era when Trump‑aligned officials have demanded voter data, pushed legislation like the SAVE Act, and installed election deniers in key posts, states must create clear legal barriers against politicized tampering with election infrastructure.[3]
It emphasizes that Democratic state Sen. Tom Umberg and other California lawmakers view the risk of interference not only from local sheriffs but also from federal agencies under Trump’s influence, prompting proposals to bar Immigration and Customs Enforcement from polling places and to keep any candidate seeking a third presidential term off the California ballot.
The article frames California as one of the few states proactively fortifying election integrity ahead of November, arguing that most states are “waiting to see” how federal pressure plays out, even as Trump and allies escalate attacks on the legitimacy of vote counting.
Overall, the piece contends that the real danger in this primary is less who occupies the governor’s office than how Trump uses the result—especially a Hilton defeat—to further normalize baseless fraud allegations and to justify broader interference in elections nationwide.[3][4]
Different views on the topic
In contrast, some conservatives and pro‑Trump commentators argue that Trump’s endorsement of Steve Hilton is primarily aimed at boosting a viable Republican contender in a deep‑blue state, not at setting up future fraud claims, and see the backing as a way to consolidate GOP support behind Hilton so a Democrat cannot face a weak Republican or another Democrat in November.[1][2]
Republican strategists quoted in news coverage describe Hilton as a serious statewide contender who benefited from Trump’s intervention, contending that the endorsement “all but ensures” a Democrat–Republican matchup and increases GOP leverage in the general election rather than serving as a pretext for undermining trust in the primary outcome.[1][2]
Some on the right maintain that skepticism about California’s voting system is grounded in genuine concerns about expansive mail‑in voting, ballot collection practices and the state’s voter‑roll maintenance, and reject characterizations of fraud worries as purely “baseless,” pointing to California’s long count times as inherently vulnerable to error or manipulation.[2]
Critics of California’s Democratic leadership argue that new laws like SB 73 risk shielding election officials from legitimate scrutiny and hampering law enforcement’s ability to investigate irregularities, suggesting that the real danger is partisan actors using “integrity” laws to block audits or inquiries that might expose administrative failures.[2][3]
Some conservative voices contend that federal interest in state elections—through requests for voter‑roll data or proposed measures such as the SAVE Act—is necessary to ensure that non‑citizens are not voting and that basic standards are met across states, arguing that resistance from California officials reflects a desire to preserve permissive rules that benefit Democrats.[3]
Opponents of measures limiting ICE or other federal agents near polling places argue that such restrictions are less about protecting voters and more about signaling opposition to immigration enforcement, and warn that removing a visible federal presence could make it harder to deter intimidation or organized fraud.
Legal and constitutional critics caution that efforts to bar anyone seeking a third presidential term from California’s ballot could trigger protracted court fights and be viewed as partisan meddling in federal elections, asserting that questions about presidential eligibility and terms belong to federal constitutional processes, not ad‑hoc state statutes.
Finally, some analysts push back on the idea that California is uniquely forward‑looking on election protections, noting that multiple Republican‑led states have passed their own “election integrity” packages—often tightening identification rules or ballot procedures—and argue that these, not California’s approach, better reflect voter demands for stricter safeguards.[3]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Author and CBS News correspondent Jonathan Vigliotti attempts to answer some questions about rebuilding communities in his new book about the Palisades Fire — and names a motive for a quick rebuild: the Olympic games coming to Los Angeles in 2028.
Today we discuss one of the pivotal events of the 1960s: the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Though the gunman was caught at the scene, confessed at trial, and even bragged about the shooting, his motives have largely been forgotten.
Fidel Martínez and Suzy Exposito sit down with Dominican-American singer, actress, and Latin Grammy-nominated artist Leslie Grace for a wide-ranging conversation about music, movies, and what it means to be Latino in Hollywood today.
