Julian Rishard Lafayette, or to family and close friends he was Nuni.

Julian Lafayette was born to Ruby and Lisa Lafayette on January 7, 1987, and passed away on Aug. 22, 2025. Julian was born and raised in Eureka. He was a very talented wrestler and held a chest full of first-place medals to show it. Growing up he was very into fishing, shooting and camping. He truly loved the outdoors. No matter the situation he kept a golden sense of humor and could always make all of us laugh. He was a very kind person and anyone who spoke with him had the same experience. He will truly be missed by many.

We had many adventures, like catching loads of bait fish under Pacific Choice docks and selling them to fisherman. We would camp in our good friend Derrick’s backyard just for fun. As kids we would make functional bows and arrows and shoot them at makeshift targets. We shot pellet guns and Julian was a crack shot. Whatever Julian put his mind to, he was truly great. 

He is survived by our mother, Lisa Barnes and father, Ruby Lafayette. Brothers: Jeremy, Andrew and myself, Jared Lafayette. Sisters: Mandolin and Marianna Lafayette. Nieces and nephews: Dominick and Taitlianna Lafayette, Elizabeth Tierney and Joel Woodward.

Julian’s services will be held at Freshwater Grange on Nov. 8, 2025 from 5 to 9 p.m.

###

PREVIOUSLY

• There are New Rules For Protesting at Cal Poly Humboldt This Year, and — Surprise! — They are Not Universally Popular

• (PHOTOS AND VIDEO) Large Pro-Palestine March on Cal Poly Humboldt’s Campus Goes Peacefully

Cal Poly Humboldt unfairly targets pro-Palestine activists by weaponizing their Time, Place, and Manner (TPM) policy on free speech against them, claimed student organizer Rick Toledo at an informal press conference on CPH’s campus this morning. It was followed by a protest attended by a few dozen students supporting him.

Toledo, 33, is a grad student in CPH’s engineering and community practice program and also one of the main organizers for Humboldt’s Students for a Democratic Society chapter. He timed the conference an hour before a disciplinary meeting with CPH administrators for violating their TPM rules; Toledo was one of the planners central to the Oct. 7 pro-Palestine march on campus several weeks ago. They did not get permission from CPH to host the rally. 

According to a letter sent to Toledo by the university’s Office of Student Rights & Responsibilities, Toledo is accused of disobeying a university officer and “substantial disruption” of a university-related activity and CPH’s normal operations. 

He said he wasn’t scared of being expelled, but does want the charges dropped. 

This isn’t the first time Toledo has chafed against the school’s TPM restrictions. In Jan. 2024, when he was an undergrad, Toledo and a crowd of student activists interrupted a university-sponsored meeting for potential donors attended by then-president Tom Jackson, chanting with a megaphone outside an art department building. Both Toledo and another protestor received deferred probations for violating the rules against amplified speech and unpermitted organizing. 

Toledo’s list of grievances with the university vis-à-vis their relationship with student activists is long. He feels that the university targets pro-Palestine groups more than other activist organizations, doesn’t do a good job compromising with them, and never changes despite the opposition; and he thinks the TPM policy is too restrictive and turns public property into an overly-regulated “business”-like space, devoid of the possibility of spontaneous demonstration (and doesn’t work to protect other students anyway). 

Though he admits that the protest broke the rules and may have annoyed other students with the noise or political messaging, Toledo thinks it was justified. Campus protests aren’t frequent enough to truly have a negative impact, he said, and the issues at stake are important enough to warrant a little chaos.

“Protest is meant to be disruptive, and it’s usually a response to a greater issue that’s not being addressed,” Toledo said this morning. “…The thing that makes it most impactful and powerful is if they can just show up spontaneously and do that thing, or if they can just call people in and make it happen pretty immediately.”

CPH said in a statement sent to the Outpost today that it supported student free speech, so long as it was respectful and rule-following. 

Cal Poly Humboldt has a longstanding and unwavering commitment to protecting free speech and the constitutional rights of all members of our campus community. We strongly support students’ right to engage in peaceful protest, advocacy, and expression of diverse viewpoints. These rights are fundamental to the mission of higher education and to the vibrant exchange of ideas that defines our university.

Recent protests on our campus demonstrate the engagement and passion of our student body on important social issues. While all recent free speech activities on campus have been peaceful, not all policies relating to Time, Place, and Manner were observed, and the University strives to ensure those policies are upheld in order to ensure free speech is protected for all.

While we cannot comment on the specifics of any specific student conduct matter, we want to be absolutely clear about the purpose and nature of any conduct proceedings we initiate in relation to free speech activities.

No student is disciplined for exercising their First Amendment rights to protest or for the content of their speech. Our Student Conduct Code explicitly prohibits disciplinary action against students based on behavior protected by the First Amendment, and we take this obligation seriously.

As a matter of policy and in accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), we do not comment on specific student conduct cases. However, broadly speaking, disciplinary action related to a Student Code of Conduct violation wouldn’t result in criminal charges unless the law is broken. Most often, disciplinary action results from a violation of University policy. Depending on the situation, conduct cases typically don’t end in suspension or expulsion.

The process of investigating a possible violation of the Student Code of Conduct policy begins with informal discussions between the Office of Student Rights & Responsibility and the student to help the student understand why a policy may have been violated and to better understand the student’s perspective of the incident in question.

The University’s process for investigating student conduct violations is a trauma-informed approach that takes into account the life experiences that may have influenced the student’s decisions. Our goal is to provide educational and well-being support and resources that a student may need to thrive at Cal Poly Humboldt, guide them in future decision-making, and ensure policies are understood and followed from that point forward. 

We encourage students with concerns about these or any other topics to reach out to the Dean of Students’ office at 707-826-3504 or dos@humboldt.edu.

For extra background on Toledo, check out this profile I wrote for the Lumberjack student newspaper in 2024.

There’s a lot on the agenda for Tuesday night’s Eureka City Council meeting — read it here — and we’ll have more about all that later. 

This post is just to quickly flag up item G.2 on the evening’s consent calendar, which otherwise might escape your attention. Titled “Withdrawal of Measure N Local Coastal Program Amendment,” the item at first glance looks like any number of boring, procedural matters that come before the council.

And perhaps it is that, in this case as well. But it is also the official end, once and for all, of the controversial “Marina Center” project — a mixed-use development proposed by Rob and Cherie Arkley, to be located on Eureka’s Balloon Track and anchored by a Home Depot — that gripped Eureka politics between about 2005 and 2010.

The question of how to redevelop the old railyard, which lies, roughly, between Broadway and Waterfront Drive to the west of Old Town, goes back even earlier, to just before the turn of the century, when Eureka citizens rallied to block Walmart from buying the site and plopping one of its superstores atop it.

A few years later, the Arkleys — through their company, Security National — purchased the land instead and scuttled a public planning process that city government was trying to put together in the Walmart’s wake. A few years after that, in 2010, Security National took a proposal to rezone the property for a big-box anchored development directly to voters, which overwhelmingly approved it, despite strong opposition from environmentalists and small-is-beautiful types.

But then, for 15 years: Nothing much! For one: A couple of years after Security National purchased the property, the economy collapsed. For another: The company was required to do lots of environmental remediation on the site.

The other thing, though, was the California Coastal Commission. Since the property lies in California’s Coastal Zone, the change in zoning approved by Eureka’s voters required a sign-off from the highest authority over land use on the coast. The city of Eureka dutifully submitted a request to the commission. The commission’s staff deemed the request “incomplete,” saying that the proposed zoning changes were likely incompatible with the Coastal Act. And there it languished for more than a decade.

Nowadays, it seems, both Security National and the city are ready to throw in the towel. In the staff report on next week’s agenda item, Cristin Kenyon, the city’s development services director, tells the city council that Security National has asked the city to scrap its long-dormant application with the Coastal Commission, so that together the city and the company might move forward with something different. (Read Security National’s letter here.)

Kenyon writes:

Formal withdrawal will close out the outdated application and allow the City to focus on future planning for the site consistent with the 2040 General Plan, which envisions the Balloon Track as a high-quality, mixed-use commercial district, emphasizing retail and service commercial uses supplemented by upper-floor office and residential space.

The Balloon Track remains one of Eureka’s largest and most strategically located infill opportunity sites. Its redevelopment represents an important opportunity to advance the Coastal Act’s emphasis on concentrating development in urbanized areas while addressing historic contamination, enhancing physical and visual access to the waterfront, improving resilience to flooding, and incorporating wetland restoration and enhancement.

What might that look like, in detail? Does Security National have something new up its sleeve? Gail Rymer, the company’s spokesperson, told the Outpost this morning that it doesn’t yet have any solid plans, but it’s eager to work with the community to develop a new vision for the site, one that’s compatible with the city’s goals.

“We’re looking at this as a fresh start,” Rymer said. “What was good back in the early 2000s isn’t where we need to be today. It’s best just to make it easy for all of us, to get those measures that prevent us from doing what we need to do down there, that’s best for Eureka, out of the way.”

PREVIOUSLY: ‘Treat Them With Dignity’: Humboldt Residents, Businesses Step Up to Help Local People at Risk of Losing SNAP Benefits

###

A federal court has blocked the Trump administration from suspending SNAP, the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, during the government shutdown. 

In his ruling, Judge John J. McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island told the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that the program must be funded using federal contingency funds, according to reporting from the Associated Press. SNAP, known as CalFresh here in California, provides monthly food benefits to approximately one in eight Americans.

“There is no doubt and it is beyond argument that irreparable harm will begin to occur if it hasn’t already occurred in the terror it has caused some people about the availability of funding for food, for their family,” Judge McConnell said during a virtual hearing on Friday.

In a separate ruling, Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ordered the Trump administration to indicate by Monday whether it would provide full or partial SNAP benefits in November, according to The New York Times. 

The ruling comes days after two dozen states and the District of Columbia sued the federal government over its “unlawful refusal” to fund SNAP benefits during the ongoing government shutdown, despite possessing contingency funds to keep the federal food assistance program funded through November.

###

UPDATE 2 P.M. California Attorney General Rob Bonta responds to Friday’s federal court ruling:

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released the following statement in response to decisions issued by two federal district courts — one in Massachusetts and the other in Rhode Island — holding the Trump Administration accountable for unlawfully suspending Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for the month of November. 

“Today, not one, but two federal district courts determined that the Trump Administration acted unlawfully when it chose to suspend SNAP benefits for the month of November. The Trump Administration knows that it has a legal duty to fund SNAP benefits, even during the current government shutdown. In fact, just last month, the USDA admitted as much in a document that it later deleted from its website,” said Attorney General Bonta. “SNAP benefits provide an essential hunger safety net to an average of 5.5 million Californians each month. Simply put, the stakes could not be higher. The Trump Administration must move expeditiously to fund November SNAP benefits.”

Earlier this week, Attorney General Bonta co-led a coalition of 23 attorneys general and three governors in filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its Secretary, Brooke Rollins, over the unlawful suspension of November SNAP benefits. The coalition also filed a request for a temporary restraining order, which the court considered during an in-person hearing yesterday. In that case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an order today stating that USDA’s SNAP “contingency reserve … must be deployed to fund SNAP benefits.” The court also determined that Attorney General Bonta and the coalition are “likely to succeed on their claim that [the Trump Administration’s] suspension of SNAP benefits is unlawful.” 

In a related lawsuit brought by a coalition of local governments, nonprofit organizations, small businesses, and workers’ rights organizations, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued an order directing USDA to fund November SNAP benefits using at least the over $5 billion in contingency funds that it has available.

A copy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’ decision can be found here.

###

Press release from Green Diamond Resource Company:

Weather conditions permitting, Green Diamond Resource Company plans to conduct prescribed burning for fuel hazard reduction today, October 31, 2025. Burning will be conducted approximately ½ mile east of Big Lagoon in northern Humboldt County. Burning operations are implemented in coordination with CAL FIRE and North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District. Please note that smoke may be visible in surrounding areas, including Highway 101, while prescribed burning activities are being conducted. Green Diamond staff will be onsite monitoring prescribed burning and fuels reduction operations. 

###

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

###

Voters in Sacramento got a mailer in recent weeks declaring that “California’s landmark election reform — under attack by Sacramento politicians.” Orinda residents have received flyers that shout “Fight back against Trump — Vote Yes.” The narrator on a video ad shared on X intones, “Two wrongs don’t make a right — Vote No.” These are among a barrage of advertisements, yard signs and billboards bombarding Californians with direction to support or oppose redrawing the state’s congressional districts four years ahead of schedule.

But none of it was paid for by the major campaigns advocating for and against Proposition 50, the ballot measure put forth by Gov. Gavin Newsom to counter Republican redistricting efforts in Texas. Instead, nonprofits, political parties and a billionaire have financed an independent effort as election day approaches Tuesday.

Groups not directly affiliated with any Prop. 50 campaign have reported spending nearly $26 million to influence voters as of October 30, more than any ballot measure in California history, according to a CalMatters analysis of secretary of state campaign finance data. The spending does not include the $118 million reportedly spent by the three major campaign committees.

Anybody can buy ads, pay canvassers, or otherwise promote their position on a California ballot measure as long as they register a state committee, disclose major funders in the ads themselves and don’t coordinate with the primary campaigns. Once they’ve spent at least $1,000, they must report their spending to the secretary of state as independent expenditures.

Independent spending for the redistricting measure is significantly more than the previous record-setting Prop. 32 in 2012, which drew $10.8 million in similar spending and would have restricted campaign contributions from labor unions if it passed.

The largest spenders outside of the major campaigns this time are billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer, who reported more than $12.8 million in expenditures and the California Republican Party, which poured more than $10.2 million into ads and messaging opposing the measure. As a result, Steyer and the state GOP have become the second- and third-largest independent ad buyers in state history. The only group to have spent more was run by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “California Dream Team,” which reported spending a combined $27.8 million on multiple ballot measures in 2004 and 2005.

In yet another example of how the campaign has drawn national attention, Congressional Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC, gave $8 million to the state GOP in October, which they used to buy nearly $2.9 million worth of digital ads two weeks ago; the super PAC also gave $5 million directly to one of the major campaigns against Prop. 50 — “Stop the Sacramento Power Grab.”

Some large nonprofit organizations are spending money on Prop. 50, too. The largest expenditures come from the California Community Foundation, which reported spending $800,000 to support the proposition, although that doesn’t capture all of the money the nonprofit is putting into the election.

Miguel Santana, president and CEO, said that the foundation is additionally spending more than a million dollars to convince voters to participate in the election without telling them specifically how to vote, though efforts to increase turnout without taking a position are not reported to the secretary of state.

“California representation at the federal level matters,” Santana said. “Our power is being diluted by the gerrymandering that is taking place in other parts of the country.”

Not just Democrats and Republicans

Other political parties and groups in the state have also reported independent expenditures for Prop. 50. The left-leaning California Working Families Party reported spending more than $36,500 on digital ads and outreach to reach voters who might be less receptive to Newsom as a messenger.

“This isn’t the fight we wanted, but I think it’s important that California, the most populous state in the country, fights back,” said Jane Kim, California Director of the Working Families Party. “We really want to hit younger voters who are less party loyalists.”

The Libertarian Party of California spent more than $6,400 for postcard mailers opposing the proposition. Loren Dean, chairman of the state party, said the outreach was an opportunity to raise the party’s profile. “It is important to us to take every opportunity to remind people that the ‘two-party’ choice is a fiction built by would-be monopolists who yearn for authority over their neighbors,” Dean said. “Third-party voices matter.”

Though not a registered political party, the California Democratic Socialists of America reported spending more than $3,500 to try to persuade voters to vote yes while maintaining distance from Gov. Newsom.

“We are not doing this to support him,” said William Prince, co-chair of the organization. “We must ally with him in the struggle against fascism.”

Similarly to the Libertarian Party, the DSA also sees value in putting out campaign materials stamped with “Democratic Socialists of America.”

“When voters think about who encouraged them to vote against a permanent MAGA majority in Congress, more are going to think of [California] DSA than they would have if we sat this out,” Prince said.

Elected officials and local parties hit their districts

More than two dozen county parties, along with current and former elected officials, have reported more than $1 million in independent expenditures for and against Prop. 50.

The Sonoma County Democratic Party reported spending nearly $90,000 on postcards, phonebanking and radio ads to support the initiative, while the Yuba County Republican Party reported almost $55,000 to spread opposition signs around Northern California.

Pat Sebo, chairperson of the Sonoma County Democratic Party, said the county party spent money on its own mailers and canvassing because it wanted to move faster than its state counterpart. “We wanted to act, we had volunteers, we had them basically beating down the doors at headquarters here,” she said.

“Ballot measure campaigns usually do not distribute signs to local Republican groups,” said Johanna Lassaga, chair of the Yuba County Republican Party. She credited her group’s expenditures for raising visibility of the party’s unified position: “If you drive through the North State, you will see [our signs] everywhere.”

Along with a $5,000 contribution to the main Yes campaign, former Democratic state Sen. Steve Glazer from Orinda used his ballot measure committee to spend more than $160,000 in support of Prop. 50, because he said he could reach voters in his district in a way a statewide campaign could not.

“When you’re running a statewide campaign, you don’t always have that luxury of microtargeting,” Glazer said. “I felt that I had a good handle on the pulse of the voters in my area, where I believe I have a heightened level of credibility.”

“We decided we want to do it quicker, better, faster,” said Assemblymember Juan Alanis, Republican from Modesto, whose ballot measure committee reported spending more than $12,500 on signs to oppose Prop. 50. He said the short election cycle meant the statewide campaigns could not ensure enough signs would reach his district in time, so he decided to “make sure my area is taken care of.”

Assemblymember Maggy Krell, a Democrat who represents Sacramento, said that the most valuable way she could have spent $8,000 was to organize door-knocking in her district. “My best contribution to the campaign is my network of volunteers — people who are going door-to-door and engaging voters one conversation at a time,” she wrote in an email.

Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio from San Diego spent more than $430,000 from his Reform California committee, because he didn’t think the official No campaign was up to the task. He released a final ad last week that urged voters statewide to reject Prop. 50.

“I don’t trust the failed consultants of these mega-committees,” he said. “My intuition was correct. The ads were horseshit, off-message.”

###

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

###

As President Donald Trump prepared to send a phalanx of federal immigration agents into the Bay Area, Gov. Gavin Newsom bemoaned the lack of outrage about Trump’s actions and ramped up his own warnings about election manipulation.

“He is going to try to rig this election,” he told reporters last week, referring to Trump’s pursuit of Republican gerrymandering in red states to ensure the party holds onto its slim majority in Congress next year.

He called the potential deployment of immigration agents — later called off by Trump — a dictator’s move to suppress the vote. Repeatedly, he’s told the story of Border Patrol agents showing up to his ballot measure kickoff event and said he expects federal agents and troops to monitor polling places next week.

As the campaign for Proposition 50, the anti-Trump Democratic gerrymandering effort California voters are deciding on, reaches a fever pitch, so too has the rhetoric of Newsom, its chief promoter.

“God help us if we lose in California,” he said in a Prop. 50 fundraising email this month. “We may have enjoyed our last free and fair election.”

Approaching his final year as governor, Newsom is staking the next phase of his career on the proposition that he first suggested as a bluff to discourage Texas’ redistricting and that he’s now casting as central to American democracy.

After a few months this year of attempting to make nice with Trump, exploring on his podcast why so many voters shifted right in 2024 and angering the left in the process, the governor spent the summer and fall delighting many Democrats again with a renewed sense of combativeness against the second-term president.

So far, he’s reaped the benefits.

From June to August, he doubled his approval in polls of potential 2028 Democratic presidential contenders rising from 12% of surveyed voters picking him to 25%. Appearing before a friendly Late Show with Stephen Colbert audience in September, he touted his willingness to be a Democrat who fights Trump on his own terms by using social media trolling. He got former President Barack Obama to join him in promoting Prop. 50.

“They’re going to send a very powerful message to the rest of the country that there has to be a new approach to dealing with Trump and Trumpism,” Newsom said of California voters on Tuesday. “It’s about the United States of America, it’s about what our founding fathers lived and died for.”

The big bet is paying off

Whether the measure passes is not just a test of whether the self-styled resister-in-chief can capture national support in 2028, but also whether he has his finger on the pulse today.

“Failure is not an option,” Newsom said last week. “We’re going to win, because people understand how precious this moment is.”

It’s a bet that risks his credibility, said Democratic strategist Matt Rodriguez. Though he added he believes the measure will pass, Rodriguez said Prop. 50 poses political “downsides” that “are bigger than the upsides.”

“His entire messaging is, ‘This is the end of the world if it doesn’t pass,’” he said. “If it doesn’t pass, it’s going to be pretty discouraging.”

Newsom has remained defiant, arguing it’s a bigger risk for Democrats to sit quietly. Asked last week if he had a contingency plan should the ballot measure fail, Newsom instead set up sky-high stakes, vowing it will pass and that Democrats will take the House and spell the “de facto end” of Trump’s presidency.

It’s working, for now: His ballot measure, which allows California to use gerrymandered congressional maps favoring Democrats to offset gerrymandered Republican House gains in Texas, is polling ahead with 56% of likely voters this month saying they would vote yes. The campaign has received so many donations that this week Newsom took the extremely rare step of telling supporters to stop sending money, seemingly an early declaration of victory.

Even Democrats who have fought Trump-backed, GOP-led gerrymandering in their own states are on board.

After Newsom placed Prop. 50 on the ballot, Missouri Republicans at Trump’s behest passed their own gerrymandered congressional map, carving out the seat held by Kansas City’s Democratic congressman. The lines cut through the suburban district of state lawmaker Keri Ingle, who said she nevertheless supports Newsom’s effort because red-state Democrats “are depending on Newsom for representation in Congress right now.”

Missouri Republicans, Ingle said, argued that because they lead the party of the majority there, they should be allowed to redraw that state’s map to gain another seat in Congress.

“To that I say, ‘OK, have it your way,’” she said. “Go get ‘em, Newsom.”

‘Long way to go’

Should the measure pass, using it to propel Democrats — and Newsom himself — further nationally is still a tall order.

There’s no guarantee that passing Prop. 50 will ensure Democrats win back the House. Few other blue states have even considered starting their own redistricting efforts, and none have nearly enough population to produce more than one or two new Democratic congressional seats. This week, Virginia Democrats approved a temporary redistricting proposal similar to California’s, though it couldn’t go to voters there until next year. Meanwhile, three GOP-led states — Texas, Missouri and North Carolina — have already passed their own gerrymandered maps. This week, Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Braun called in a special legislative session to do the same.

And Rodriguez said there’s still little sign Democrats have a platform to win back the middle-ground voters most concerned about crime and their economic prospects.

A September Reuters poll of American adults showed Democrats only two percentage points ahead of Republicans on the issue of “respect for democracy,” and four percentage points behind on “political extremism.” A Reuters poll this month showed 40% of American voters will vote in the midterms based on the cost of living. Protecting democracy was second in importance, at 28%.

“There’s still a long way to go, as to whether this passing will leapfrog him further than he has already,” Rodriguez said of Newsom. “It’s just not a vote-driver for most Americans.”

In red, rural Modoc County, erstwhile Democrat Sarah Merrick said she’d like to see the party develop a clearer national platform “instead of just being anti-Trump,” that includes reining in health care costs, campaign finance reform and committing to winning back moderates. She and her husband left the party in recent years, feeling it was “so leftist” and unnecessarily alienating cultural conservatives.

Prop. 50 and Newsom’s highlighting of democratic principles got her more energized about politics for the first time in years, said Merrick, who leads a local Indivisible activist group. But she’s not sure if she’d support Newsom for president, saying she wants to know more about the state’s decision to provide health care for poor undocumented immigrants and why it hasn’t lowered housing prices.

“I really like his backbone right now, I think it’s awesome,” she said. “I think stressing on Prop. 50 and anti-dictatorship and all that is OK for now, through Nov. 4. After Nov. 4, I think a big shift needs to happen in messaging.”

An economic plan will be important for both swing voters, and for the party’s faithful.

Lorena Gonzalez, leader of the California Labor Federation, has led union workers across California in running an aggressive anti-Trump campaign to help pass Prop. 50. But she said the governor’s future political prospects will depend in part on how he handles American workers’ anxiety around artificial intelligence and job losses, which Gonzalez predicted will be a prominent election issue in 2026 and beyond.

“It’s catapulted him,” she said of Prop. 50 and Newsom. “I don’t think it lasts beyond this time.”