Griffiths is the national editor of Independent Voter News, where a version of this story first appeared.
California voters have a chance to make history this year by electing independent leaders to the state’s top executive offices for the first time in modern history. Among these independents is a gay, tough-on-crime, former Republican who supports abortion rights and is running for attorney general.
And then there's No Party Preference gubernatorial candidate Michael Shellenberger, who has tremendous financial backing and could beat out a weak Republican field with a message that targets Democrats’ handling of homelessness. If he is able to advance to November, the former Democrat could bring in support from across the political spectrum and give the incumbent, Democrat Gavin Newsom, a much more formidable challenge than he faced against his staunchly conservative opponent in the recall.
But the contest that may present the more probable path to a political upheaval going into the June 7 primary is not for the governor’s seat. It is the race for attorney general.
Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert is running for attorney general as an NPP candidate, and unlike any independent candidate before her, she has garnered near-universal backing from California’s top law enforcement organizations. In other words, she may not have the power of the party institutions, but she has critical support in a race where crime is as big an issue as ever.
Schubert changed her affiliation from Republican to independent in 2018 and is prominently known throughout California for prosecuting the Golden State Killer. She is running against two Republicans and Democratic incumbent Rob Bonta.
Why could Schubert's matchup with Bonta present a serious challenge that a Republican challenger cannot offer?
Well, it’s California. With abortion rights taking center-stage following the leaked draft of a potential Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, being anti-abortion (or a Republican for that matter) will be a non-starter with the California electorate. But Schubert, like Bonta, is supports abortion rights. She’s also gay.
These two factors could give disgruntled Democrats and left-leaning independents who fear of the Republican Party’s positions on social issues a viable alternative.
Under California’s nonpartisan top-two primary, the general election will be a one-on-one race between Bonta and one other challenger. Bonta knows that his path to victory against a Republican will be a much easier one, and is spending money to make sure Republicans vote for the most anti-abortion Republican in the race.
Against a Republican, Bonta would be able to duck widespread concerns over a rise in crime observed by most California voters, and his support for Proposition 47, which a majority of voters want to change. Proposition 47 reduced the threshold for some drug and theft offenses to misdemeanors, including more than doubling the amount stolen to charge a person with felony theft.
In its endorsement of Schubert, the San Diego Union Tribune writes:
“Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert would be a far more formidable rival. She’s a Republican-turned-independent, pro-choice, even-keeled disdainer of Donald Trump who was the first gay person elected to countywide office in Sacramento. In interviews, she’s wondered what’s progressive about telling people “that domestic violence is a nonviolent crime.” But she’s hardly a law-and-order caricature. She faults the state for inadequate rehabilitation funding to help offenders rebound. In our Q&A, she praised state laws limiting officers’ use of force and promoting transparency.”
Could Schubert, who believes Californians have grown “ sick of politics ” become the first NPP candidate to be elected attorney general?
In a head-to-head race against a Democrat who has been an advocate for far-left policies and prosecutors that have become increasingly unpopular, we might find out this November.
If Schubert can pull off a top-two finish on June 7, her nonpartisan approach to prosecution and law could help her win over Democrats dissatisfied with Bonta, Republicans who like her aggressive approach to violent crime, and independents who are just fed up with partisans on both sides of the isle.
An independent has already come close to winning a statewide election in California under the state’s nonpartisan top-two primary. Republican-turned-independent Steve Poizner nearly beat Democrat Ricardo Lara for insurance commissioner in 2018 in the midst of a blue wave. But he did not have the kind of institutional support that Schubert has garnered, the independent resume -- nor the timing.
Political analysts predict a red wave this year. But in California, Schubert could represent a shifting tide that brings in a wave of independence.
Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.