Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Fight erupts in California over drop boxes and the limits of 'harvesting'

California drop box

The California GOP has set up its own drop boxes across the state, but Democrats say only official drop boxes, like the one pictured above, are legal.

Frederic J. Brown/Getty Images

Partisan tensions, fears of voter suppression and allegations of cheating are roiling in the early stages of the almost entirely by-mail election in the nation's most populous state. At issue is how far the political parties can push California's rules permitting them to collect the envelopes.

Top Democratic officials are ordering the state Republican Party to remove about 50 drop boxes set up to collect ballots in reliably red parts of the state, maintaining they are illegal and could lead to voting fraud. Party officials say they will not comply with Monday's cease-and-desist order, asserting the boxes comply with a state law allowing campaigns to assist with ballot collection.

The dispute — over the limits of what President Trump and other critics deride as the practice of "ballot harvesting" — is the latest skirmish in the partisan war over voting rights and rules easements for an election upended by the coronavirus pandemic.


Trump has no shot at California's trove of 55 electoral votes, but he has been highly critical of the state's decision to send ballots to all 21 million active registered voters. In response, the GOP has gone to unusual lengths to get the best of this year's system — especially in the parts of the state hosting five competitive congressional contests and other hot down-ballot races.

Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra told the state GOP to remove the dark gray metal boxes it has stationed across Fresno, Orange and Los Angeles counties — affixed with white paper labels declaring they are as either an "Official Ballot Drop off Box" or a "Ballot Drop Box." To the average voter, they look indistinguishable from the hardware being used by the state.

The letter says only county election officials have the authority to set up drop boxes to ensure they all adhere to strict security requirements. "These unauthorized drop boxes are a disservice to elections administrators and a disservice to voters who deserve to cast their ballots with clarity and confidence," Padilla said in a statement.

The letter requests that Republican officials provide a list of unofficial drop box locations and voters who used them to county election administrators by Thursday.

While the state GOP has admitted to placing these drop boxes across the state — including outside churches, gun stores, local GOP headquarters and gas stations — officials deny any wrongdoing and have refused to remove the drop boxes.

"There is nothing in any of the laws or regulations cited in that advisory that indicate private organization drop boxes are not permitted," said Hector Barajas, a spokesman for the California GOP. He blamed Democrats for blocking legislation to tighten the rules for third-party ballot collection.

Four years ago, the Democrats in charge in Sacramento enacted a law removing limitations on who could return an absentee ballot for another voter. Before, only close family members could help out, but the change expanded this assistance to campaign workers and volunteers.

The Democrats made particularly assertive use of the new rules in the 2018 congressional midterms, when their organized armies of ballot collectors helped drive up turnout among their supporters — resulting in the party taking six House seats from the GOP. Trump decried the practice as corrupt at that point, although partisan workers delivering at least some ballots cast by others is permissible in 26 states.

For this campaign, Republicans vowed to do a better job turning the system to their advantage — unless they could get rid of the new law.

Although Republicans in Fresno County have agreed to remove their drop boxes, it's unclear if the others will remain. The Orange County district attorney's office is currently investigating the matter.


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less