The top four candidates vying to become California’s next U.S. senator arrived at Universal Studios in Hollywood last night for their last live televised debate — a final chance to sway undecided debate-watchers — before the March 5 primary.

The debate hosted by NBC4 and Telemundo 52 drew Democratic U.S. Reps. Barbara Lee, Katie Porter and Adam Schiff, as well as Steve Garvey, a Republican and former L.A. Dodgers star.

Broadcast in both English and Spanish, the hour-long event was an opportunity for candidates to reach Spanish-speaking Latino voters, who could help determine winners up and down the ballot in March — if they turn out.

The candidates have stressed for months the importance of reaching Latino voters, who are the biggest racial and ethnic group in California but the least likely to vote. Lee, Porter and Schiff have participated in two forums targeting Latino voters, including a November event on immigration issues and another hosted by the Spanish-language broadcast network Univision on Saturday, which Garvey declined to attend.

But recent polling among Latino voters shows a large portion still undecided in this race. A California Elections and Policy poll published earlier this month showed that 31% of likely Latino voters were undecided.

While most Latinos nationwide speak English proficiently, some researchers say airing Spanish-language ads still helps political campaigns resonate with and turn out Latino voters. But in the Senate race, even as campaigns dropped millions on digital and TV ads statewide, they have spent little on Spanish-language advertising, Politico reported.

Here are some key highlights:

Latino outreach

All three Democrats received the same question:

Why should Latino voters trust you, even though Democrats failed to overhaul the immigration system when they controlled both the White House and Congress?

Porter — who often tries to distinguish herself from others she deems “career politicians” in Washington, D.C. — blamed her colleagues in Congress.

“I’m not satisfied with what Democrats or Republicans have been delivering,” she said. “I’m not going to offer you the status quo because the status quo has been unacceptable and not enough for millions of Americans. I’m tired of hearing about comprehensive immigration reform. I want to do it.”

“Comprehensive immigration reform” is just what Lee and Schiff championed next. All three have supported — or even co-sponsored — bills to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and their children.

“Our Latino community should not trust us. They should grade us based on the work that we have done, our voting record and exactly what we believe in,” Lee said, pledging to work with California’s U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla on providing legal status for long-term U.S. residents and farmworkers.

Schiff — endorsed by both the United Farm Workers and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights’s Action Fund — said the failure to “reform” the immigration system in 2010 was “on our party.” To pass it, Democrats would have to “do it ourselves” and get rid of the filibuster — a political tactic often used to prolong a floor debate and slow down legislative actions.

But why should Latino voters trust Republicans such as former President Donald Trump, who reportedly opposed a bipartisan immigration deal to avoid giving President Joe Biden a victory?

Garvey, who received the question, blamed the bill for not doing enough to “secure the border,” even though the bill would have given Biden emergency power to shut down the border.

All three Democrats said they would not have voted for the bill package, arguing it did not go far enough to protect immigrants.

War and peace

The candidates diverged on America’s role in the world and whether the country should provide foreign aid.

Lee — who has been the most consistent of the candidates to oppose increasing military funding and the only one to call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza — disagreed with most of her opponents on multiple issues.

She was the only Democrat to directly oppose the U.S. deploying troops to Taiwan if it were attacked by China. Garvey said “no troops on the ground.” Porter said she would “support safeguarding us from the threats of China,” while Schiff sided with Biden, who has supported deploying troops.

On the bipartisan deal to provide $60 billion in aid to Ukraine, Lee was the only one to express concerns with certain provisions.

Garvey was asked to “defend” Trump’s foreign policy agenda but did not answer the question, instead telling the TV audience that he would do “everything to maintain your security.”

Climate change

When asked about the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County — California’s last nuclear power plant, which is scheduled to shut down after 2030 — all three Democrats agreed it must eventually be decommissioned, and some agreed with Newsom’s schedule.

But will the candidates embrace nuclear energy?

Schiff, while stressing the nation should move away from fossil fuel and invest in new energy, said nuclear energy must be part of the discussion.

Lee said she does not support nuclear power. Porter said she sees nuclear waste “in my own backyard,” noting she is part of the bipartisan Fusion Caucus in Congress that’s focused on new technology that reduces hazardous waste.

Garvey, however, supported keeping Diablo Canyon open and also said fossil fuels should be here to stay.

“This country runs on gas and oil,” he said. “When it’s all said and done, the people will decide. They are the ones that will tell us what they can afford and what they need.”

Clashes between Schiff and Porter

Schiff and Porter went toe-to-toe, trading blows on multiple issues from child care to corporate donations.

While talking about inflation, Porter claimed Schiff did not sign on as co-sponsors of two bills to lower child care costs. She was referring to the Child Care for Working Families Act, which would cap child care costs at 7% of a family’s household income, and the Child Care for Every Community Act, which would waive child care fees for low-income families, her campaign told CalMatters.

Schiff countered that he has authored his own. “There’s nothing easier than putting your name on a bill. Where you see the real legislators is that they write their own legislation,” he said.

Schiff’s campaign pointed to two bills he helped introduce, including the Child Care Stabilization Act to extend funding for child care providers and the Affordable Housing and Childcare Investment Act to fund for more child care facilities.

The two also clashed on their record accepting campaign contributions from corporations. Porter — who has touted her record of never having accepted corporate PAC money — has criticized Schiff for accepting a total of $2 million from corporate PAC throughout his career. His campaign has not cashed checks from corporate PACs this election.

Schiff, however, accused Porter of taking contributions from oil, banking and pharmaceutical industries. Her campaign swore off contributions from executives associated with those industries.

When asked for proof, Schiff’s campaign pointed to statistics collected by OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan nonprofit that tracks money in politics.

Data shows Porter’s campaign collected more than $171,000 from individuals who worked in the energy and natural resources sector, $290,000 from those who worked in the pharmaceutical and health products industry and almost $3 million from the finance, insurance and real estate industry, which includes commercial banking.

The data does not distinguish between contributions from executives and those from low-level employees.

The two also again clashed on earmarks — a process members of Congress use to secure federal funding for their own districts. Porter has argued that the process breeds corruption and has refused to make requests, noting she has instead testified in hearings and written support letters for district-specific federal funding.

“Washington gave sweetheart deals to certain defense contractors through earmarks, and there is a candidate on this stage who has done that again and again, getting earmarks for his private corporate donors who are big defense contractors,” Porter said, referring to Schiff’s early-career campaign contributions from PACs and lobbyists tied to for-profit companies he helped deliver funding to.

Porter did not attack Lee, who also requested earmark funding.

Schiff argued that not requesting the funding would only benefit lawmakers from other states, stating that Porter “prefers a political talking point.”

“Any senator who won’t do that is going to be a gift to every other state of the union, who will fight for resources for their state.”

Despite their clashes, Schiff, who is leading in the polls, and Porter, who is trying to finish in the top two, have adopted seemingly similar political strategies.

Schiff has lambasted Garvey in debates, mailers and TV ads on his past votes for former President Donald Trump — a campaign tactic experts have said could help elevate Garvey’s profile and thrust him into the top two, likely guaranteeing Schiff an easier path to victory if he finishes as the top candidate on March 5.

Porter’s campaign has slammed Schiff for propping up Garvey, deeming it in her fundraising messages as a “sneaky play” to “push Katie out of the top two.”

But her campaign engaged in a similar tactic targeting Eric Early, a GOP attorney who is lagging in polls and fundraising despite winning the endorsement of a dozen local Republican parties. “MAGA Republican Eric Early proudly stands with Donald Trump, while Steve Garvey refuses to tell us who he supports,” the ad said.

Porter invoked Early’s name again on stage, arguing he is “100% MAGA.”

Porter spokesperson Nathan Click defended the ad, telling Politico the clip simply works to “set the record straight about Republican Trump-worshipper Eric Early and dodging waffler Steve Garvey.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

The biggest challenge facing lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom is the state budget deficit — and it just got bigger.

Today, the Legislative Analyst’s Office projected the shortfall as $15 billion higher, or $73 billion.

The analyst’s office had pegged the 2024-25 deficit at $58 billion in January, using Newsom’s revenue estimates when he presented his initial budget proposal.

On Friday, Newsom’s Department of Finance reported that preliminary General Fund cash receipts in January were $5 billion below (or nearly 20%) the governor’s budget forecast. Unless state tax revenues pick up significantly, the bigger number will make it more difficult to balance the state budget just through dipping into reserves and targeted spending cuts.

But exactly how the state can dig its way out — at least in the Assembly — remains to be seen. Speaker Robert Rivas told reporters today that the budget has been at the forefront of conversations among Assembly Democrats and that he is very concerned with the growing deficit.

He praised the governor’s commitment to preserving classroom funding, and said he didn’t see a way to avoid dipping into the state’s reserves, as the governor’s January budget plan proposed — though the speaker urged a prudent approach to using rainy day savings in case the budget picture worsens in future years.

“We are very concerned about short-term fixes for long-term problems,” said Rivas, who took over as speaker last summer, just days after the Legislature and Newsom reached a deal on the 2023-24 budget that covered a $30 billion deficit after two years of record surpluses.

“Clearly, we need to prioritize oversight and curb spending and our investments,” Rivas added.

In the coming weeks, Rivas’ plan calls for an oversight budget subcommittee he formed in December to review the state’s spending on housing, he said.

But, as legislative leaders and the governor have noted, the budget deficit won’t be addressed just through oversight and cuts. It’ll also mean tougher paths for bills lawmakers introduce this year — including the return of the single-payer healthcare effort by Democratic Assemblymember Ash Kalra.

“It’s a good idea, but it’s a tough, tough sell, especially in the budget climate that we are experiencing now,” he said.

And while the governor has shot down any attempt to raise taxes or create new ones to increase state revenues, Rivas did not take a position.

“We look at all of the strategies when it comes to ensuring that we have a balanced budget — there are many of those tools that are available,” he said. “Which ones are appropriate, I’m not going to comment on that yet. That’s what we’re trying to figure out now.”

But Rivas may have to make some decisions soon: A spokesperson for Newsom’s Department of Finance issued a statement later today calling on the Legislature to take early action on $8 billion in savings to address the looming deficit. Newsom will propose an updated budget in May before negotiations with legislative leaders and a final spending blueprint in June.

Today’s updated deficit projection also prompted concern and criticism of Democrats from the Republican caucus. Sen. Roger Niello, vice-chairperson of the Senate budget committee, echoed the sentiment on oversight, in a statement; “It’s time for a course correction and a renewed commitment to responsible budgeting that puts the needs of our residents first.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Fallout from our state’s long history of breaking promises to people with serious mental illness is everywhere.

It can be found under our overpasses and in our tent encampments, but also inside our jails and prisons, our emergency rooms, our schools, our homes.

It flashes across our public opinion polls, which repeatedly list mental health as a top concern.

Increasingly, it makes its way into our political discourse. Referencing “our broken system,” Gov. Gavin Newsom in recent years has rolled out mental health policies with dizzying speed.

Now he’s promoting Proposition 1, a two-pronged March ballot measure that would fund a $6.4 billion bond for treatment beds and permanent supportive housing, while also requiring counties to spend more of their existing mental health funds on people who are chronically homeless.

The measure makes promises of its own.

“These reforms, and this new investment in behavioral health housing, will help California make good on promises made decades ago,” Newsom has said.

What are the promises that California has made to people with mental illness over the years? And why are so many people still suffering?

Here’s a brief timeline of mental health policies in our state — of promises made and promises broken — during the past 75 years.

1950s & 1960s: An era of institutionalization

In the 1950s, it is relatively easy to force people into state mental hospitals, many of which have horrific conditions. The number of patients peaks in the late-1950s, at approximately 37,000. During that time, the state starts shifting control over mental health services to counties, embarking on the process of deinstitutionalization. This process accelerates in the late 1960s with the passage of the landmark Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, a law designed to protect the civil rights of people with mental illnesses.

1954: The federal Food & Drug Administration approves Chlorpromazine (Thorazine), the first antipsychotic drug, to treat people with serious mental illnesses.

1957: The California Legislature increases funding for community mental health under the Short-Doyle Act, aiming to treat more people in their communities instead of in state hospitals.

1963: President John Fitzgerald Kennedy signs the Community Mental Health Act, promising federal leadership to build and staff a network of community mental health centers. Less than a month later, he is assassinated. Many of the clinics are never built.

1965: Congress creates Medicare and Medicaid, allowing people with mental illnesses to receive treatment in their communities.

1967: Then-Gov. Ronald Reagan signs the Lanterman-Petris-Short law limiting involuntary detention of all but the most gravely disabled people with mental illness and providing them with legal protections.

1970s & 1980s: California tax revolt leads to austerity

As state mental hospitals close in the 1970s, many people with serious mental illnesses are moved into for-profit nursing homes and board and care homes. Their numbers on the streets and inside jails and prisons begin to rise. The 1980s sees significant funding cuts for mental health services at both the state and federal levels.

1978: The Community Residential Treatment Systems Act seeks to create unlocked, noninstitutional alternatives for people with mental illness throughout California.

The same year, voters pass Proposition 13, capping property taxes and reducing the amount of money available to counties for a variety of services, including mental health.

1980: President Jimmy Carter, who a few years earlier created a Presidential Commission on Mental Health at the urging of his wife Rosalynn, signs the Mental Health Systems Act to fund the community mental health centers envisioned by President Kennedy.

1981: President Ronald Reagan signs the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, repealing most of Carter’s Mental Health Systems Act and kicking responsibility for people with serious mental illness back to the states.

1990s: Local control of mental health services

The decade sees funding and responsibility for mental health services shift from the state to counties. California passes a law to hold health plans accountable for providing adequate mental health treatment.

1991: The state Legislature passes “realignment” — moving funding and responsibility for many mental health services from the state to counties.

1995: The state implements Medi-Cal Mental Health Managed Care, making counties responsible for providing many Medicaid mental health services.

1999: California passes a state parity law, requiring private health plans to provide equal coverage for serious mental illness and physical health.

The same year, the Homeless Mentally Ill Act — a pilot program to help homeless people with serious mental illness and an important precursor to the Mental Health Services Act — rolls out in three counties.

2000s: New resources for mental health care

Optimism about the state’s ability to finally address the needs of people with mental illness surges with the passage of the landmark Mental Health Services Act. But the Great Recession in the later part of the decade threatens some of that progress.

2002: The Legislature passes Laura’s Law. Named for a young woman killed by a man who refused psychiatric care, the law allows — but does not require — counties to build court-ordered treatment programs.

2004: California voters approve the Mental Health Services Act. The 1% tax on people with incomes above $1 million provides a new source of revenue to bolster county mental health systems.

2008: A federal parity law, the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, requires health plans that offer coverage for mental health issues and substance use disorders to provide comparable benefits to those offered for medical and surgical treatments.

2010s: Homelessness focuses attention

The numbers of people with serious mental illness experiencing homelessness continue to increase. Jails and prisons are now the country’s largest mental health providers, and a backlog of incarcerated people deemed incompetent to stand trial draws increasing scrutiny. The numbers of children and adolescents landing in hospitals in mental health crises begins to rise.

2010: The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) requires insurers to provide mental health as an essential benefit.

2011: The Great Recession triggers significant budget cuts, pushing some people out of the public mental health system. A second movement or ‘realignment’ of mental health and substance use disorder services passes even more funding and responsibility from the state to the counties.

2012: California eliminates its Department of Mental Health and distributes its responsibilities among other state departments.

2013: The Mental Health Wellness Act injects about $143 million into increasing the capacity of the state’s mental health crisis response system.

2018: California voters pass a ballot measure called No Place Like Home to build and rehabilitate supportive housing for people with mental illness. The measure authorizes the use of Mental Health Services Act funds to pay for $2 billion in bonds.

That same year, Newsom is elected governor and vows to make mental health a major focus of his administration.

2020s: Newsom’s mental health agenda

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the sheer number of people with mental illness on the streets, along with the fentanyl epidemic and a growing mental health crisis among children and teenagers, leads to increased public interest in mental health. The Newsom administration makes unprecedented investments and rolls out a steady stream of major policy changes. Critics decry some of these changes as moving the state toward more involuntary treatment.

2020: California passes a “groundbreaking” new state parity law, greatly expanding upon its earlier law and making it a national leader in requiring commercial health plans to provide mental health services.

2021: The Newsom administration allocates $4.6 billion in one-time funds for a Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative.

2022: The administration creates Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Courts, new court systems to address the needs of people with serious mental illness that have some echoes of Laura’s Law. This time, county participation is not optional.

That same year, a massive statewide effort called California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) begins rolling out, promising to expand and streamline access to mental health care for people insured by Medi-Cal, the public insurance program for low-income Californians.

2023: Newsom signs a law that amends the definition of “grave disability” that was originally laid out in the landmark 1967 law limiting involuntary confinement in the state. The amendment makes it easier to conserve people with serious mental illness — stripping them of their rights and entrusting their care to public guardians.

2024: Proposition 1 comes before the voters. If it passes, it will bring in billions of new funding for permanent supportive housing and treatment beds, and will place new parameters on how Mental Health Services Act funds are used.

###

This timeline was reported with the help of dozens of news articles and government and academic reports, as well as interviews and historical information provided by a variety of individuals, including Steve Fields, Adrienne Shilton, Michelle Cabrera, Corey Hashida, Stacie Hiramoto, Randall Hagar, Diane Van Maren, Chad Costello and Alex Barnard’s 2023 book “Conservatorship: Inside California’s System of Coercion and Care for Mental Illness”

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Ina Mae Wilson was 67 years old. She departed this life on February 15, 2024. She was born October 22, 1956 to Carl Wilson Sr. and Mary Wilson.

Ina grew up and was raised in Humboldt County, graduating from Eureka High School. Ina began her life teaching at Hoopa Head Start and worked in daycares and youth groups. Several years she taught children from Weitchpec, Hoopa, Eureka, Fortuna and Loleta. Everywhere she went kids would be so happy to see her, they would say there’s Teacher Ina. Ina loved teaching and sharing the Yurok language to all the kids and loved singing church songs, nursery rhymes, Indian songs and at ceremonies too. She will be missed and she liked life every day

She was a Yurok tribal member and proud of it. She was known for her beadwork, baskets and had several other talents. Ina loved taking road trips with her longtime friend Sherri Aragon, Mama Theresa and Mr. Ed to church, or running away with her niece Mary Spott just to cruise to town to go eat, go shopping or have some fun. She loved an adventure and was always down to run away especially her rides with her niece Tina who was always making her smile, laugh, or doing crazy videos.

Ina moved away and returned home eventually and found her happiness when she moved to Loleta with her brother Robert and sister Susie, enjoying Sunday family dinners, beading time with all the nieces or going to yard sales with Susie. Soon she found her home back in Hoopa and got to spend time with her grandson Eric and her great-grand babies. Phone calls would be about how much fun she had playing with the boys and how big they got. When Eric came to visit, she loved cooking for him and spending time with him. Soon her granddaughter came along and stole her heart. Ina had lots of friends and family which will miss her daily.

Ina was an awesome mom, grandma, aunt and friend who had a contagious laugh and smile. She gave us all the best memories. Her love for her children was endless and she enjoyed spending time with them. A forever special moment she spoke about were her times on the road to Sun Dance or powwows with her son Harold. Ceremonies held a special place in her heart and she loved learning the traditional ways. Ina started many beading groups teaching many how to bead. If there was a gathering there she was selling her jewelry, Ina was a good person inside and out and lived life in happiness and making the best moments for herself, her family and friends.

Ina was preceded in death by her parents Carl Wilson Sr. and Mary Wilson, Her daughter Marie Marshall and several brothers and sisters Samuel Peters, Tony Peters, Bill William Wilson, Kathleen Sherman, Laura Bell Doolittle, Carol Wilson, Alberta Wilson. Several nieces, nephews and cousins. Survived by her son Harold Marshall and his Children Ki-kya Marshall her three kids Cody, Hazel, and Robert. Cha-gun Marshall, Ronald Marshall, Inaya and Redriver Marshall, grandson Eric Amos and wife Kyra and their three kids Edgie, Eric and Alisa, siblings - Robert and Susie Wilson, Carl Wilson Sr and Karen Spencer, adopted son Art and many nieces and nephews. She loved all of them. She had greater love for her niece Mary who she always would call and spent many of her last days with. Thank you, Mary, for always going to Hoopa to take care of her, take her food or bring her out town to have some fun. Thank you, Kim, for always being there and getting her and to anyone that called, stopped by to visit or took her out of the house. She loved and talked about everyone in her life. As we are all already lost without her, she is now dancing in heaven with all of her loved ones.

The memorial service and potluck will be held on February 24, 2024 at 1 p.m. at the Wiyot Tribe — 1000 Wiyot Drive, Loleta.

Ken Kelly passed away peacefully on February 1, 2024. He was born in Sacramento on October 26, 1973 to his mother, Dianne Kelly. He was the youngest of his two siblings, Mark and Kim. He grew up in Sacramento.

Ken spent four years in the United States Navy. He was a proud Seabee.

His only child, Caitlin, was born in 1998. He was a single father devoted to fatherhood. He won father of the year in 2006.

Ken struggled with drug addiction through most of his adult life. Despite this, he always did the best he could for people around him. He cared for his mother until she passed in 2018.

His granddaughter Estelle was born in 2017. From the day she was born, she was always his highest priority. He was the most dedicated grandfather. You could always tell that with everything he did, Estelle was always on his mind.

Ken turned his life around completely. He got clean. In 2020, he moved to Fortuna with his daughter. Shortly after, he got a job at Aegis, the methadone clinic in Eureka. That job was his life. He touched the lives of countless people working in the clinic. Before the cancer diagnosis, Ken was in school to become a drug counselor. His dream was helping others through their struggles just like he had faced.

Ken is predeceased by his mother, Dianne Kelly.

Ken is survived by his brother, Mark Kapogiannis, his sister, Kim Kapogiannis, his daughter, Caitlin Kelly, his son-in-law, Omar Arias, and his granddaughter, Estelle Quinteros.

Ken also leaves behind many friends and coworkers too numerous to name. His coworkers at Aegis, Ramona Arne, Tammy Myers, Kinza Umar, and many others, become a very special part of his life.

Ken touched many lives and will be greatly missed. Cancer took his life way too soon. From his family, to his friends, his coworkers, his patients at work, many people felt Ken’s affect on their lives.

A celebration of life with Navy honors will be held at the Sacramento Valley National Cemetery on Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 2 p.m. Anybody who knew Ken is welcome to attend.

###

The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Ken Kelley’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here.

###

Facing a formal investigation from the California Commission on Judicial Performance, Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Gregory Kreis now has until the end of the month to submit a response to the inquiry’s 19 allegations of misconduct.

The original deadline to reply to the commission’s Notice of Formal Proceedings was this upcoming Thursday, Feb. 22. But in an email to the Outpost, Kreis’s San Francisco-based attorney, James A. Murphy, said he requested and was granted an extension to Feb. 29, which is just five days before Primary Election Day. 

Kreis, who was appointed to the bench by former California Gov. Jerry Brown in May 2017, is seeking re-election against challenger April Van Dyke and recently announced write-in candidate Jessica Watson.

The 19 allegations of judicial misconduct against Kreis include drug and alcohol use, antisemitism, inappropriate sexual behavior, prejudicial administration of justice and making false or misleading declarations in court proceedings.

Since news of the investigation first broke, the story has gone national, with coverage from CBS News, Rolling Stone magazine, the Guardian, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat and other outlets. 

Kreis has called the allegations against him “salacious and false.”

###

With two weeks to go before California’s official Primary Election Day, the Humboldt County Office of Elections has already received roughly 5,500 ballots.

“It is a surprisingly high turnout for this time of year,” said Humboldt County Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters Juan Pablo Cervantes.

During the last Presidential Primary Election, in 2020, a total of 47,969 ballots were cast, representing about 60.5 percent of registered voters at the time. If voters turn out in similar numbers this year, then that means more than 10 percent of the vote has already been cast. 

The county currently has 82,850 actively registered voters, though that number changes daily if not hourly, according to Cervantes. And if you’re hoping to vote in the upcoming election, today (Tuesday) is the last day to register. You can check your registration status and register to vote via the county’s elections website, here.

Cervantes, who was elected to office in 2022, said it’s difficult to compare this year’s early turnout numbers to last year’s because his office didn’t track data equivalently in 2023. But generally speaking, the percentage of Californians who vote absentee has climbed dramatically in recent years, due in large part to the state’s post-pandemic implementation of universal voting by mail. 

In the 2016 Presidential Primary, less than 59 percent of the ballots cast statewide were submitted by mail. Six years later, in 2022, that figure jumped to more than 91 percent. 

For more info on the local candidates running this go-round, head on over to our LoCO Elections page, where you can read responses to reader questions and submit your own.

And again, if you haven’t yet registered to vote on March 5, you have until the close of business today to do so. If you miss the deadline, California offers same-day voter registration, which allows people to register at vote centers and then cast a provisional ballot. That registration becomes valid and permanent once county elections officials process and validates the information.