About 6,000 homes under evacuation, affecting 16,000 residents in San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano

At least six homes burned and two firefighters were injured after a fast-moving wildfire blazed through parts of southern California on Friday.

Two firefighters were taken to the hospital with heat-related injuries from the Norte fire, officials said.

A modern-day prospector promised rural Imperial thousands of jobs and millions in tax revenue – but his plan has set off a firestorm of resistance

Sebastian Rucci zoomed in on a map in late 2024, looking closely at a large block of brown earth. The barren plot sandwiched between sprawling alfalfa fields and sleepy desert suburbs was exactly what he’d been searching for – the perfect place to realize his dream of building the largest artificial intelligence datacenter in California.

The dusty expanse wasn’t an obvious location. It was in the Sonoran desert, just north of the Mexican border, where temperatures regularly rose past 100F (37.8C). Water was scarce in the once-booming agricultural area, which gets its supply from the beleaguered Colorado River. And then, there was the city of Imperial – population 22,000 – to win over. As controversial datacenter projects have sprung up across the US, residents were naturally skeptical of a new, energy-guzzling neighbor.

• Shalini Bonjour is building a 1,100-square-foot ADU in her backyard so her mother can age in place.
• The project is taking longer than she expected and is going over budget.
• Bonjour shared the five biggest lessons she's learned during the process with Business Insider.

After her father died in 2024, real estate agent Shalini Karnani Bonjour moved her mother from Michigan to California to be closer to her and her family.

"My husband and I didn't feel comfortable having her so far away, especially when it came to her day-to-day needs," Bonjour, 50, told Business Insider.

Later that year, the family bought a home with a backyard large enough to build an accessory dwelling unit for her mother. In 2025, they broke ground on a 1,100-square-foot ADU. But what was expected to be a six-week project has dragged on for months and cost the family thousands more than expected.

"The whole process has been difficult because there are so many things to manage," Bonjour said. "You're trying to keep the project affordable, keep your neighbors happy, and stay on track. I can only imagine how overwhelming this would feel for someone without any insight into the process, because it is a huge undertaking."

Here are five hard lessons Bonjour has learned from the project, from choosing the right contractor to budgeting enough money for unexpected challenges.

A bad contractor can make or break a project

At first, Bonjour thought she had found the right architect for the project. They designed the ADU and even promised to guide her through the permitting and construction process. But they didn't follow through.

Bonjour said hiring the wrong person was one of the "biggest mistakes" she's made during the project.

Although she found someone to take over the project after interviewing about 10 builders, mistakes made by the original architect have made construction more difficult.

"Watching my builder try to translate that original designer's plans is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole," she said. "It's basically like he was working off somebody else's recipe."

Understanding local permitting and construction rules is essential

Every city has its own rules for building ADUs, and some are more complicated than others.

In her part of the Coachella Valley, Bonjour had to secure permits for the roof, electrical work, plumbing, HVAC, and solar panel installation.

"The city was pretty tough on solar," Bonjour said. "The first two electrical inspections were fine, and then on the third inspection, they determined we needed solar panels. Getting solar here in the desert is its own job. Researching the proper solar companies and their packages was another."

Building a home can test relationships

While the family waits for the ADU to be finished, Bonjour, her husband, their son, and her mother are all living in the main house. It's been difficult sharing space, especially the kitchen.

"My mom loves to cook, so having her own kitchen will be really important to her," she said. "She was making a recipe and said, "It'll be different when I have my own stuff." I think the whole thing is bittersweet, but once she sees her finished kitchen, she'll feel different."

Construction has caused headaches for the cul-de-sac, too. Because the neighborhood's electrical transformer is outdated and overloaded, the local utility needs to upgrade it before the ADU can be connected. The work has involved digging up Bonjour's driveway and those of two neighbors.

"Our neighbors had to deal with the inconvenience of their driveways being out for a week and a half," she said. "My contractor and I are trying to be as considerate as we can and get the best people to do the work as quickly as possible. Thankfully, the neighbors have been gracious and nice along the way."

You have to be careful with your budget

Bonjour's family budgeted $480,000 for the construction of the ADU. Of that total, they set aside $100,000 as a contingency fund.

"As a realtor, and as someone who's always telling people to ask all the questions, I also hate to be caught by surprise," Bonjour said. "With the contingency budget, you build in extra money that you hope you won't need. It's something everyone should consider, whether they're building a million-dollar home or a small casita in the backyard."

Unfortunately, unexpected costs, like hiring replacement contractors and installing a new electrical panel and solar panels, have exhausted the reserve. Bonjour said the extra expenses have trickled into the family's day-to-day life, making it harder to justify things like family trips and upgrading the main home.

"I wish I had allocated it differently, but again, I think that planning with the right people at the onset would have saved so much headache and time," she said. "We'll have to wait on upgrading the home. That's kind of annoying, but that's where we're at. Lesson learned on that one."

Give yourself grace; it's all a learning process

If she had to do it all over again, Bonjour says she would make different decisions.

"I'm a professional, so I hold myself to a higher standard of asking questions and being informed," she said. "I like to have good relationships with the builders, contractors, and vendors. In some ways, I feel like I should have known or seen what was going wrong, and that becomes really hard to kind of wrestle with."

She still tries to give herself grace. For all its challenges, she believes building the ADU has been the right decision.

"We know that having Mom in proximity is right for our family," she added. "We've learned some lessons along the way as homeowners, as a realtor, as a child, as a mom who's growing old herself."

Justice Department actions against state election laws highlight growing national conflict over voter registration lists and mail-in voting security.

Mail-in voting is an established mechanism in the United States election system. It lets eligible citizens cast their votes by mail instead of going to the polling place on Election Day.

RELATED:
U.S. Justice Department Sues California Over Mail-In Ballots

Over the past decades, state governments have modified vote-by-mail laws to lower administrative costs, increase turnout, and provide alternative access for citizens who face logistical challenges on election days.

In this in-depth article, we will explore the history of mail-in voting, its characteristics, and why the current Trump administration has sought to alter this voting system.

History and the Rationale for Mail-In Voting

Remote voting in the United States dates back to the American Civil War (1861 – 1865). During this war, Union and Confederate soldiers who were away from their districts were permitted to submit written absentee ballots so that deployment would not disenfranchise them.

Throughout the 20th century, the mailing vote expanded beyond military personnel. State governments initially granted absentee ballots to civilians who were ill, physically disabled, or traveling for business on Election Day. Later, lawmakers introduced no-excuse absentee voting, which allowed registered voters to request a mail ballot without providing a specific reason.

In November 1998, Oregon became the first state to conduct all primary elections entirely by mail. By 2000, Oregon conducted the first mail-in presidential election in the U.S., achieving a registered voter participation of over 80 percent. Following Oregon’s model, other states, including Washington, Colorado, Utah, and Hawaii, transitioned to universal vote-by-mail systems after 2020.

Several practical factors explain the implementation of mail-in voting. For voters, it eliminates common obstacles associated with in-person voting, such as work, child care responsibilities, and long lines at precinct polling sites.

For the U.S. administration, state-wide vote-by-mail reduces the need for temporary poll workers, lowers equipment purchases for physical polling locations, and decreases operational expenses on election days.

How Mail-In Voting Works and Its Security Record

Mail-in voting operates through structured legal protocols designed to maintain ballot security and track individual submissions. State election offices verify registered voter addresses and signatures, using databases before mailing official ballot materials.

After a voter completes their ballot, they can return it by U.S. Postal Service or place it in a designated local election drop box. Upon receipt, election workers process the ballot through signature verification procedures.

Empirical research shows that voter fraud in mail-in systems is extremely rare. Academic studies and data compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice indicate that the total rate of mail voting fraud over general elections averages 0.000043 percent, or roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast.

U.S. State election officials rely on barcoded envelopes, secure chain-of-custody procedures, and signature checks to prevent duplicate submissions and preserve election integrity.

Institutional Mechanics and the 2020 Pandemic Pivot

Mail-in voting requires precise administrative coordination between state election agencies, postal services, and voters. When the U.S. implements universal mail-in voting or no-excuse absentee voting, election authorities cross-reference voter registration databases to ensure accurate residential addresses.

Once ballots are printed, they are mailed to registered voters with instructions, a secrecy sleeve, and a pre-paid or postage-guaranteed return envelope.

Security throughout this process relies on multi-step verification systems. When a voter completes their ballot, they place it inside the secrecy sleeve, seal it within the signature-required return envelope, and sign a legal affirmation printed on the exterior.

Election offices process these returned envelopes by running them through automated sorting machines and optical scanners that capture the voter’s signature. Bipartisan teams of election workers compare the signature against official registration records, such as state driver’s license files or original voter registration cards.

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 triggered a transformation in U.S. elections. To prevent viral transmission at crowded indoor polling places, numerous states rapidly expanded mail-in voting options, allowing millions of citizens to vote remotely.

According to reports from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the voters by mail grew to 46 percent nationwide in 2020, more than doubling the fraction recorded in 2016. Conversely, the share of voters casting ballots in person on Election Day dropped from 60 percent to 28 percent.

Following the pandemic emergency, several states, including California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Vermont, permanently codified universal vote-by-mail systems into law, establishing remote ballot delivery as a permanent fixture of their electoral infrastructure.

Partisan Realignment, Demographic Realities, and the Red Mirage

The widespread adoption of mail-in voting reshaped traditional patterns of voter participation and introduced complex dynamics in how election results are reported. 

Despite assumptions that mail-in voting consistently favors a single political party, demographic and class analyses demonstrate that vote-by-mail systems benefit diverse working-class populations across the political spectrum.

Low-wage workers, hourly wage earners, agricultural laborers, and caretakers often lack the schedule flexibility required to stand in long lines during restricted polling hours.

Universal mail-in voting removes these temporal and economic barriers, facilitating participation for working families in both urban centers and rural conservative districts, such as in Utah and Montana, where mail-in voting has enjoyed long-standing bipartisan acceptance.

The differing timelines required to process mail-in ballots also created a phenomenon known as the “red mirage.” Because mail-in ballots require time-intensive signature verification, flattening, and manual extraction before they can be counted, many states process in-person votes first on election night.

This operational sequence frequently caused early vote counts to show a temporary lead for candidates who performed strongly among in-person voters, while subsequent processing of mail-in ballots altered vote totals over the following days.

This structural delay in reporting complete totals became a central focal point in post-election legal disputes and public debates over election administration.

Donald Trump’s Stance and Legal Action Against California

President Donald Trump has maintained a vocal opposition to mail-in voting. In public addresses, Trump has repeatedly alleged that universal mail-in voting systems lead to widespread election fraud and unfair outcomes.

Despite using absentee mail-in voting himself in past state elections, Trump argued throughout his campaigns and current presidency that expanding mail-in voting undermines public trust in election administration.

The Trump administration has taken direct executive actions aimed at curtailing mail ballot access. Policy changes and administrative decisions have altered operational procedures at the U.S. Postal Service, including adjustments to sorting equipment and delivery guidelines.

The Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit targeting California’s election procedures. California established a universal mail-in voting model by enacting legislation requiring county election officials to send a mail ballot to every active registered voter in the state.

The lawsuit by the federal government argued that California’s system creates risks of unlawful voting and challenged state oversight of its official voter registration lists.

Specifically, the federal complaint alleged that California had failed to conduct proper voter roll maintenance, citing federal lists regarding individuals flagged as noncitizens who were sent mail ballots.

The lawsuit sought a court order to block state election officials from counting certain mail-in ballots ahead of the elections. In response, California state officials, including the Attorney General and Secretary of State, defended the legal validity of universal mail-in voting.

State leaders noted that California law relies on signature matching, secure drop-box monitoring, and continuous voter file updates to verify voter identity and maintain system integrity, while arguing that federal interventions violate laws restricting voter roll changes close to an election. Courts continue to review these challenges regarding federal authority over state-administered election laws.

Mail-in voting Also Shapes Results

Mail-in voting remains an essential tool in modern American election administration. From its origins, mail-in voting has provided voters with a flexible, low-cost option to participate in national and local elections.

While the expansion of vote-by-mail systems during the 2020 pandemic increased overall voter turnout, it also intensified political debate over election administration and security measures.

Although empirical data show that voter fraud in mail-in systems remains extremely rare, legal and political challenges, such as federal lawsuits targeting state mail-in procedures, continue to shape the discussion surrounding electoral access.

The ongoing debates over vote-by-mail illustrate a continuing effort to balance security with public access in the U.S. election system. As states enact laws to regulate, expand, or limit mail ballot procedures, the future of mail-in voting will remain a central topic in discussions about democratic participation and legal policy.

My recent trip to Malibu from Los Angeles was my first post-wildfire drive through the Pacific Palisades and, my goodness, there's nothing like seeing something with one's own eyes to grasp the enormity of the devastation. The obliterated hulks along Pacific Coast Highway 21 months after the tragedy raise multiple issues, including ones related to the excruciatingly slow rebuilding process.

This being California, the state has yet to grapple sufficiently with the reasons the wildfires started—and the failed response to them. But late is better than never, so I applaud a new report that Gov. Gavin Newsom commissioned from the nonprofit Fire Safety Research Institute. Released this month, it looked at the nitty-gritty of how the fires started and how multiple agencies reacted. The results aren't pretty.

The New York Times provided the best summary: "The comprehensive analysis found that while several state and local agencies fell fatally short in their preparation and response, the clearest lesson from the disaster was the extent to which climate-driven fires are outstripping modern firefighting." The report found LA officials failed to take the fires seriously enough at the outset. County officials handled the Altadena evacuations in a "chaotic" manner. They were unprepared for the intensity of the fire storms.

We've all read about some of the inexplicable stupidity. The Santa Ynez Reservoir was empty during the fires because of a repair to its protective cover, yet it's empty again (although it's in the process of being refilled). The California Coastal Commission allegedly delayed new permits for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to install fire-resistant utility poles because of concerns about an endangered weed. The commission disputes that report—and there's still heated debate involving multiple agencies.

If we can't get multiple agencies on the same page on one minor question about milkvetch, I'm skeptical California can deal with the basics. The report said the tragedy involved "multiple interlinked systems rather than any single factor or failure." In one example by Patch, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department remained at normal staffing levels. The Los Angeles Fire Department was reportedly so concerned about overtime costs that it reportedly responded slowly.

This epitomizes California's approach to everything: Bigger agencies, higher spending, and expanded workforces. The left hand never knows what the right hand is doing. Other priorities outside of public protection—budgeting, meeting union demands, turf battles—take precedence. This isn't malicious, but reflects the fundamental nature of government.

Even after the state suspended rebuilding regulations, the rebuilding process is still in a quagmire because of the number of involved agencies. How could California realistically streamline a wildfire-fighting process that involves an alphabet soup of local, county, regional, and state bureaucracies? Even the feds are involved because around 45 percent of the state's land area is owned by them. The wildfire issue is a statewide problem, so the conclusions should resonate beyond LA.

Furthermore, the report argues that California needs to change its overall approach toward wildfire resilience. Back to the Times analysis, which noted that climate-driven fires are becoming more intense and that's challenging the traditional ways that the state has battled wildfires. But how often have you seen governments respond efficiently to external economic or environmental changes? All governments are slow-moving freight trains.

Everything government does is mired in the past. As an unrelated example, the nation's education system isn't much different than the one created in the 1800s—despite all the technological changes that should have sparked a revolution. When COVID hit, private schools adapted and provided successful at-home learning, whereas the public schools watched students fall behind and truancy rates soar. It's not any different with any public service, including firefighting.

My fear: California policymakers will read that summary about "climate-driven" fire risks and do what they always do: blame the problem on climate change and double down on the state's counterproductive climate policies. They are designed to change the entire Earth's weather patterns (even though California is responsible for less than 1% of the world's greenhouse emissions), rather than adjust our regulatory system to make us more resilient in the face of warming trends.

California's union-controlled state and local governments aren't about to adjust firefighting budgets so they can further stretch their dollars. State firefighters generally earn more than $250,000 in annual total compensation, with some Los Angeles firefighting officials earning pay levels that boggle the mind. Instead of trimming costs, California has been ratcheting up pay levels.

California state officials haven't even been forthright about their approach toward brush clearance. For instance, four years ago Newsom touted an important wildfire-prevention program that at the time hadn't completed a single project. We hear promises, but little action.

That's government for you. It doesn't do anything well and is incapable of learning the right lessons even from the best reports. Driving along PCH was just my latest reminder of this sad truth.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

The post Why Are California's Governments So Lousy at Fighting Wildfires? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The Trump administration alleges California is allowing noncitizens to vote.

On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against California, seeking a federal judge’s order barring the state from counting mail-in ballots cast by people the federal government considers illegal immigrants.

RELATED:

Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s $20 Million Ad Campaign

“Under California law, every registered voter is mailed a ballot. It is illegal for undocumented immigrants to vote in federal elections,” the U.S. government said in a statement.

The motion was filed 48 hours after President Donald Trump’s administration threatened California election officials if they did not review a list of alleged noncitizens on Los Angeles’ voter rolls.

“Preliminary analysis has identified a significant number of people in California who are likely not citizens and appear to be registered to vote; the analysis and review are ongoing,” the Justice Department said.

The Trump administration maintains that California election officials refused to comply with the demand to clean up the voter rolls despite being given an ultimatum.

“Our lawsuit alleges that California is facilitating illegal voting by knowingly allowing noncitizens to vote. This must end,” the statement said.

In recent weeks, the U.S. government has stepped up its demands for voter registration roll reviews ahead of the midterm elections. State officials have rejected that pressure, noting that states are solely responsible for organizing elections within their territories.

In a letter to the Justice Department, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber pointed out that the federal government had not provided evidence to support its allegation that 20,000 names on the voter rolls belonged to noncitizens.

“She cited a case in which the federal government alleged that nearly 16,000 possible noncitizens were listed on Nevada’s voter rolls, but the state determined that all of them were, in fact, U.S. citizens,” the East Bay Times reported.

“The letter sent by acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter gave the state 48 hours to research the list of the 20,000 people it claims might not be citizens. For those whose citizenship cannot be independently verified, the state is to instruct local election officials to segregate their mail-in ballots until their status can be determined, and to not provide a ballot to anyone who has not yet received one,” the local outlet added.

teleSUR/ JF

Sources: EFE – East Bay Times

Google Maps still shows a prosperous image of Pacific Place, a business center on the busy Valley boulevard in a suburb east of Los Angeles, California. But that picture no longer matches reality. The windows of a mental health clinic and a real estate agency have been boarded up to protect the premises from vandalism. One by one, shops pulled down their shutters until the mall was almost deserted. Several businesses belonging to an enigmatic figure also closed: Guojun Xuan, a wealthy Chinese immigrant who is at the center of a chilling case involving the alleged mistreatment of 21 children at his Arcadia mansion.

Seguir leyendo