'BradCast' 6/3/2026 (Corrupt, Partisan SCOTUS Ends All Claim to Legitimacy with Mid-Election Alabama Ruling; Primary election results)

We've never had a Native American governor in New Mexico. We're a multicultural state. I think it's important. I think representation matters, especially in a political era such as this one. So really proud and honor to carry on the legacy of my ancestors who worked so incredibly hard to make sure that I had a place here today. So it's not all bad. Right? Well, I don't know why I came here tonight. I got the feeling of something right. I'm so scared. From Pacifica Radio in Los Angeles, this is the broadcast as heard on KPFK 90.7 FM in LA and on dozens of other fine affiliate stations on both public airwaves and the internets around the country and the world, including a whole bunch of them in New Mexico there. Like I said, some good news today. Blanketing Planet Earth. I'm Brad Friedman. Your friendly investigative blogger, journalist, troublemaker, muckraker, and all-round, swell fellow. Says me from bradblog.com. Thank you very much for joining us for another all too thrilling edition of the Bradcast. Delighted to have you here. I had hoped to lead off today with noteworthy election results or what we may have for them as of today at the top of today's show. We will still get to those noteworthy results today, but as the disastrously. Virtually irreparably corrupted U.S. Supreme Court decided to interrupt election results as they were coming in on Tuesday night with its latest horrible, corrupt, frankly evil. Shadow docket ruling to upend this year's critical midterm elections and indeed American democracy and even the Constitution itself. Well, so will our coverage on the broadcast of Tuesday's results be temporarily waylaid here today. In case I don't find the time to loop back to it today, let me just say up front that any plan for Democrats to rebuild this nation, if they are ever able to regain the power needed to do so,

Any such plan that does not include a plan to seriously overhaul and reform the corrupted, the entirely corrupted U.S. Supreme Court is not a serious plan. I know that some Democrats have begun to cobble together something or other that they are describing as a project, as a project 2029. That's great. But if it doesn't include reform of the broken Supreme Court at a minimum, then it is not an actual plan to rebuild or renew this nation at all. Just dropping that here for the moment, as I can almost guarantee, we will revisit those thoughts, perhaps repeatedly in the coming days and weeks and months and years. So why am I kicking off with that? Well, if there was any question about what a scam. The John Roberts has been running for years when it comes to cases in which they have invoked the so-called Purcell doctrine. Well, that question should now be laid to rest forever. Whether or not this is actually a scam. The Purcell doctrine or Purcell principle was one of those doctrines largely pulled out of the asses of the court's right wingers that on one level made at least some sense. The idea was that changes to the way that elections are run, changes to district maps or to the rules of an election should not be made too close to an actual election. Because it could result in chaos and confusion for voters and election officials alike if it happened too close to the start of an election. It makes sense on a general level. The problem was, as the years went on, it seemed that the court's right-wing majority really only seemed to enforce that doctrine when the things that would be changing. in an election might help Democrats somehow in that upcoming election. If a lower court found, for instance, that a voting district might have been created as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that might disenfranchise thousands of black voters, well, Using a new map to correct for an unlawful, unconstitutional district might confuse or cause chaos for voters if the change came too close to the start of an election, even if the election was still months and months away. If it changed to a voting law, however, that might help Republicans, on the other hand, in some way, well, that changed to, let's say, election laws. That would be just fine because Lord knows we wouldn't want to have unlawful votes potentially cast or something, even if the law in question was created to stop some sort of fraud, that nobody could actually show any evidence for ever having actually happened.

And even though this law might end up disenfranchising, yes, Democratic voters in the bargain, well, that's okay. That would be just fine, even if it was right before an election. That would be just fine for this corrupted partisan activist Supreme Court. In early December last year, by way of just one example, the Supreme Court on their so-called emergency docket, known as their shadow docket, where they don't usually explain much, if anything at all, about their rulings. In early December of last year, the court blocked a new court-ordered U.S. House map for the November 26 midterm elections in the state of Texas, even though that state's existing map was found by the most conservative appeals court in the nation. The Fifth Circuit, Court of Appeals. found it to be an unlawful racial gerrymander that would harm minority voters and their right to have representation of their choosing. But the courts corrupt, six to three right-wing majority, did not do much explaining of their reasoning in that shadow docket ruling. where they blocked that map that wouldn't be unconstitutional, though they did write in an unsigned opinion, quote, this court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal court should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election. In that case, the eve of an election, that was on December 4 of 2025 when they issued their ruling in advance of this year's midterm elections, which were not scheduled to take place until November 3 of 2026, almost a full year away. That was the eve of an election. when the corrupt activist right-wingers on the court wanted to make sure that they allowed a racial gerrymander to proceed. And they use the Purcell principle as their justification for doing so. Well, it's too close to the eve of an election. Of course, Texas's primary election at the time was scheduled for March 3rd. That was about three months away from that December 4th opinion last year. So even though Texas had the earliest primary of the year, and they could have postponed it by a few months in order to make sure that its own voters were not disenfranchised, well, the corrupt right-wing supremes, instead, they just blocked the order.

The order from the very conservative lower appeals court, saying that it was too close to an eve of an election to change the map. The unlawful unconstitutional racial gerrymander, that would just have to stand. Sorry minority voters in Texas, but we can't afford to risk chaos and confusion at the polls. Now, of course, with their party and their president up against it, now the Supremes are more than happy, it seems, as we have learned yet again, late last night to, they're more than happy to change U.S. House maps themselves in the middle of an actual election, not before, not on the eve of, but right in the middle of an actual election. Even though a lower appeals court has now twice blocked the state from using a map that was found to be an unlawful gerrymander. And even though tens of thousands of voters had already cast their votes in this election under the map, which was not discriminatory, that wasn't unconstitutional, that wasn't changed by the Republican-dominated state legislature in the middle of voting on the old maps. Last week, the appeals court blocked the state of Alabama from erasing one of two majority black districts from their U.S. House map. On Tuesday night, this week, however, as results were coming in from six states holding primary elections for this year's midterms. The Supreme Court allowed Alabama to use that new congressional map for this year's elections. How close to the election was it? Well, Alabama's midterm primary election was held two weeks ago. On May 19. That's right. The corrupt right-wing SCOTUS just allowed Alabama to change the U.S. House maps for 2026 in an election that they already held in Alabama. As TPM's Kate Riga reported last night in a piece headlined, Scotis cobbles together excuse to let Alabama discriminate against black voters in new order, quote, adding insult to injury, this court had previously ruled. that it was too close to Alabama's elections to impose a new map, one that remedied the state's discrimination, a whole three months before the primary. But as the majority wrote on Tuesday night, quote, while federal courts Should not impose changes close to an election, states are free to decide for themselves whether last minute changes to an election are in their best interest. Aha! So that's new. Courts may not change anything at the last minute when it comes to elections. That would cause chaos and confusion, but states are free to do so if they wish.

Translation, Riga notes, Purcell counts, except when Republican states don't want it to. Hi, does he doyne. Hi, exactly true. In other words, if a voting law or voting map helps Republicans, it's okay. Yep. If it helps Democrats or racial minorities, hell no. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent to this ruling on Tuesday night, joined by the court's two liberals, the order, quote, debases the democratic process by upending Alabama's entire election in the name of permitting Alabama. to discriminate against black Alabamians." Of course, the justices on this split six to three along ideological lines granting an emergency emergency request filed by Republican state officials seeking to use this map, despite the fact. that it is racially discriminatory. In their unsigned three-page order, the court said that the state is likely to ultimately prevail on its claim that the discriminatory map was actually lawfully drawn. So sure, why not both disenfranchised black voters overall and especially those who already cast their vote in an election where Republicans were not allowed to racially gerrymander? We got to fix that. Now, of course, they can just go ahead and use that new map, have an all-new election. As Sotomayor argued, the majority's decision, quote, disregards both democratic values and the rule of law. Well, it sure does. Under the redrawn map, Democratic Congressman Shamari figures would likely lose out. His district will be erased right down the Jim Crow memory hole, thanks to SCOTUS. That, despite the fact that a lower court found that the map intentionally discriminated against black voters in violation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment. In an earlier ruling, the court had also found that the map violated the Voting Rights Act. That, of course, has now largely been gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the constitutional breach was still a problem with this map, whether you gut the Voting Rights Act or not. But the Supremes do not care about the Constitution, not at all anymore, unless it fits their partisan goals. Much less do they care about their so-called Purcell principle. The intentional racial discrimination decision by the lower court was based on the fact that the state drew the map with one majority black district, even after the lower court suggested there should be two majority black districts after finding an earlier map had violated the Voting Rights Act in a state where more than a quarter of the population is black.

The unlawful map in question was blocked by the Supreme Court itself back in 2023. But after they moved the goalposts again in their recent Louisiana versus Calais ruling earlier this year, well, they instructed the lower court to go back and give that that map previously found to be unlawful. Give it another look. So guess what happened? The three-judge panel did exactly that. On May 26, about a week ago, they concluded for a second time that, yes, the map was still unconstitutional. The state's primaries were already held on May 19. But now the state has rescheduled primaries with the apparent blessing of the Supreme Court for just the four districts that were affected by the changed maps, even though those maps were found to be unconstitutional. That new primary will now be August 11. That do-over primary will be August 11, even though tens of thousands of voters have already voted on the previous maps. And even though the state elections chief, as Justice Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent, explained that changes to voting districts in Alabama are all done by hand, manually, by local election officials. It's not just done by a big computer switch or something. And those local election officials in dozens of counties will have to go in and find and change the records for some 600,000 voters one by one and change their voting records somehow in time for the August election where ballots and other materials will have to go out almost immediately now. But let's avoid chaos and confusion on the eve of an election, shall we? The result, as Sotomayor noted, will be the absolute chaos and confusion that the Purcell principle previously invoked by the right-wing Supreme Court whenever they felt like it, because it was so important to help avoid that chaos and confusion that they were really, really worried about. Even if the election was months and months and months away, at least until this corrupted majority, just decided they would ignore any and all such concerns, even when it came to a map found twice to be both unlawful under the Voter Rights Act and unconstitutional in violation of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment adopted to avoid this kind of racial discrimination. by southern states exactly like Alabama. Quote,

Hassan concludes, quote, as Justice Sotomayor shows, the Supreme Court erred in so many ways. It did not review the district court's factual findings for clear error. It did not recognize that the lower court applied the presumption of good faith as instructed in the ruling in Louisiana v. Calais, but had ample evidence. that Alabama acted in bad faith, flouting the rulings of the district court in hopes fulfilled here that the Supreme Court would see things differently. Which is true. Alabama just ignored what they were told to do by the district, by the lower district court, figured, well, the Supreme Court will have our back when we get there. And boy, did they. Wright's Hassan, it allows changes at the last minute, at the last minute after Alabama had represented to the court earlier in the litigation that it would need months to make the kind of changes that election administrators will now have to make in days. More and more, writes Hassan, this court shows itself to be little more than a partisan tool engaged in results-oriented jurisprudence. despite their protestations to the contrary. So this is the ground on which we are all heading into what is shaping up to be. Yet again, the most important elections of our lifetime. Yeah, I know we say that for pretty much every election these days. But that is only because it's true. Because we mean it. It is. Things are getting that bad and that direct. And yet for now, anyway, until people have finally had enough and start bringing out the torches and the pitchforks and the guillotine, until then, at least, it is those same bastardized and corrupted elections that are still going to have to be our way out of this somehow. Please pay attention. All of this matters. Yes, it is the most important election of your lifetime. Do not give up the ship. Do not give up. Do not give in. We shall overcome.

I may have more to share about all of this, if time allows later in the show. But for now, let me take a breath here, and we will come back with at least some of our previously planned coverage of election results in six states following elections or what now suffices for them in those states on Tuesday. I'm Brad Friedman, and yep, this is still your friendly neighborhood broadcast. What the public hears on the public airwaves matters. At the broadcast, we do our best to bring you accurate news and analysis on the issues that actually matter, and we do it all independently without corporate or political influence. But we can't do it without you, now more than ever. Please help us stay on your public airwaves by going to bradblog.com slash donate to help keep us going. That's bradblog.com slash donate. And thanks. Let me tell you something, children, this little light of mine, I'm going to let it shine. This little light of mine, I'm going to let it shine. I'm going to let it shine. Let it shine to show my lover. Yeah, let it shine. Welcome back to the broadcast. Brad Friedman from brandblog.com. Welcome back. Despite the corrupted U.S. Supreme Court undermining our nation and our constitution and our democracy itself, or perhaps arguably because of it. We soldier on through the primary season, Desi Doyen. Yes, we do. Elections were held on Tuesday in six. Count them six great American states. Well, at least five great American states. New Jersey, Iowa, South Dakota, Montana, New Mexico, and, of course, California. I'll let you decide which of those is great. In any event, let's run through some of the notable results in a few of those states with the note, as always, that these are results. As of today, in some cases, as of this hour, as of right now, they're tallied entirely by computers, wholly unverified by human beings, and in many cases still incomplete as... As ballots continue to be tallied, and in some states like California here today, as ballots are still arriving over the next several days that were cast and mailed on or before election day, but where they may still be arriving via the U.S. Postal Service several days later, totally lawfully. Moreover, as we also try to note, problems at the polls or in the tabulation often take some time to make it to light or to come to my attention at least. Though I am happy to note, as of now, I am unaware of any major meltdowns at the polling places or problems for voters in Tuesday's contests.

On a huge election day, like the one we have this week, much less one sidetracked by our corrupted Supreme Court, it's almost impossible to run through everything of note just by virtue of, well, hell, California alone has 52 U.S. House districts. Yes. So mercifully, this will be a rather selective report as of now on noteworthy races. Fun fact, by the way, California has nearly 40 million people. We get two U.S. senators out here. Alabama, on the other hand, they have just over 5 million people, a quarter of them black, as I mentioned previously. They also get two U.S. senators and the, of course, presidential electoral votes to go with them. South Dakota, one of the states which held elections on Tuesday, has less than a million people, but they also get the same two U.S. Senate seats and electoral votes to go with them in presidential races. If we had a level playing field baked into our electoral system, well, if South Dakota gets two U.S. senators for their less than one million people, well, the state of California... With 40 million. They deserve 80. U.S. senators here in California. And yes, that many additional electoral college votes in presidential races. But sure, we can all pretend when Donald Trump says it that the electoral college system is somehow very, very unfair to Republicans. Oh, is it really? Sure it is. Because words and reality no longer have any meaning. But I digress. Let's move through the noteworthy results from Tuesday in no particular order other than perhaps roughly east to west across the nation. We'll start in New Jersey. One of the biggest races in New Jersey on Tuesday was for the state's seventh U.S. House District. It stretches from New York City, the New York City suburbs out to the Pennsylvania border. It's considered a swing district. It's a crucial one for Republicans to hold on to. as they hope to defend their narrow majority in the House this year. It is coming under even closer scrutiny, however, this week, closer scrutiny than normal as Republican Congressman Tom Keene Jr., he has not been seen publicly for months at this point. He has missed more than 100 votes in the U.S. House since casting his last one back on March 5. Nobody... Even fellow Republicans seem to be sure what the hell is going on, where Tom Keene Jr. is, or when he will come back, or if he will even show up to campaign in New Jersey's seventh this year. Though he said in a statement on Tuesday that I presume he wrote, presumably he's not dead, he wrote, quote, that he is focused on my recovery. and would return to, quote, in-person work within a matter of weeks. Now, what exactly he is recovering from? Well, that nobody, even House Speaker Mike Johnson, if you believe a word that he says, and you shouldn't. Even he doesn't seem to know. So this seat would seem to be getting more friendly to Democrats by the day.

as it has an invisible representative currently at this point. Well, hopefully it's not some sort of weekend at Bernie situation. I don't know. Nobody knows. So with that of mind, former Navy pilot Rebecca Bennett was among the Democrats in the primary on Tuesday who made Keene's absence. clarity about it, a central part of her campaign. She easily won the Democratic nomination on Tuesday to take on the mysteriously absent keen this November. And while we are in the Garden State, let me note that Republican Justin Murphy overcame three opponents to win the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in New Jersey, where he will take on the incumbent Democrat Cory Booker, who ran unopposed on Tuesday. So it will be Murphy versus Cory Booker this fall. We, of course, wish Mr. Murphy all the best of luck there. Moving to Iowa, which is wildly interesting on several levels this year. Iowa State Senator, I'm sorry, Iowa State rep Josh Turek. A former gold medal Paralympic athlete, supported by the Democratic establishment in the Hawkeye State, won the Democratic primary on Tuesday night for U.S. Senate in a very closely watched race between him and Zach Walls, a progressive who said he would oppose Senator Chuck Schumer being the party leader. It was a really interesting race. This guy, Zach Walls, who did not win. You may remember him. I think we may have even played him on this show years ago when he spoke out, I think, at the Iowa... State Legislature in favor of marriage equality. He was like 19 years old at the time. He gave a really moving speech. He was raised by two women who are lesbians. And it was a really interesting kind of went viral back then. Well, now he's running for the U.S. Senate, or at least was on Tuesday in the Democratic primary. And while it was a closely watched contest, Zach Walls did not win. Walls being the more progressive, Turek being the sort of establishment supported Democrat. Turek would not commit either way to whether he would support Chuck Schumer as Senate leader. In any event, Turek ran away with that contest on Tuesday by about 25 points. He will now face the Trump-induced Ashley Hinson.

who also easily won on the Republican side on Tuesday. This is a race, however, where Democrats hope to flip a Republican seat from red to blue, specifically that of the retiring two-term Republican U.S. Senator Joni Ernst, who chose not to run for a third term. Cook, political report rates that Iowa Senate race still as likely Republican. That said, while Iowa has turned sort of decisively read in recent years, it was not always that way. In fact, Iowa voted for Barack Obama both times that he ran for office, which was not all that long ago. Unless I'm older than I think, which is totally possible. But Dems cope that, at least in a blue wave year, they may be able to even flip a state like Iowa. where I note that while more voters turned out for the Republican primary on Tuesday, about 206,000, that was actually not all that much more than the number who turned out on the Democratic side, which is about 192,000. So if we can read anything from the turnout, I would also note there was a bit more reason for Republicans to show up on Tuesday in that Republican Governor Kim Reynolds, who has served for 10 years. and has become wildly unpopular, found to be the most unpopular governor in the nation. Two years running now. Congratulations, Kim. Due in no small part with her support of Donald Trump, who has just crushed the Iowa farm economy on a whole bunch of levels. Yes, he has. Tariffs. the war in Iran and the lack of fertilizer that is able to come out of the Strait of Hormuz. Well, Reynolds, with all of that, has chosen to not run again, probably wise. But Democrats see this as a real opportunity. this November. So in addition to an open Senate seat in Iowa, the state will also have an open governor's race this year. Democratic state auditor Rob Sand, the only statewide elected Democrat, who has now won for state auditor twice. He's quite popular. He ran uncontested for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination on Tuesday in Iowa, but there was a competitive race for the Republican nomination, which may have helped to goo.

Republican turnout overall. And here in this governor's primary in the Republican side, we've got a bit of a surprise on Tuesday. In just the past month, the supposed power of Trump's great endorsement. It did help to bring a sudden end to the political careers of two sitting Republican U.S. senators, John Cornyn of Texas, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, and Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky. But he was unable, apparently, with his endorsement, his magical endorsement, to lift... His favorite candidate to victory in the Republican primary for governor on Tuesday in Iowa. GOP establishment favorite Congressman Randy Feenstra endorsed by Donald Trump. He ran against four other candidates for the Republican nod. He appears to have lost his race. to a local state farmer, Zach Lawn, who defeated Randy Feenstra and two other former state officials, suggesting that no, Donald Trump is not necessarily all powerful in the Republican Party. At least not in Iowa this year, for some reason. At least not in their Republican primary. It was a pretty close race, however, just less than a percentage point between Lon and Randy Feenstra at my last check. But Iowa has no automatic recount for such cases, even though this was a contest with less than a one-point margin. And only candidates. The only candidates who are allowed to have a recount in a statewide race are those that must request it themselves, pay for it themselves, and only if the margin is less than 0.15%. Wow. That's ridiculously low. And the fact that they charge the candidates to do so means that the barrier to getting a recount is quite high. Yeah. Sorry about that, Congressman. It looks like you're out. And it will be, you know, and I say that because obviously if it's within a point, obviously there should be a recount. But Republicans have fought so hard to prevent to make it harder and harder and harder to have these recounts that can be overseen by the public and counts, hopefully. That, well, in this case, sorry about that. Congressman, you're out. And it will be farmer Zach Lawn, apparently facing state auditor, Democratic state auditor, Rob Sand, to become the next governor of Iowa in what could be a year where Democrats.

Get lucky again. In Iowa, they see this is one of their best hopes of flipping a gubernatorial seat this year from red to blue. Well, let's skip to South Dakota and Montana, and we're going to combine them because they have too many senators as it is between them. It is not all about Democrats and Republicans this year. AP notes in part of their coverage today as they cite an interesting trend worth noting, I think, in states like South Dakota and Montana and others out west, as AP observes if Democrats hope to compete in Senate contests in Republican strongholds this fall. They may have to abandon their party's nominees and rally around independence. That's one of the takeaways after voters on Tuesday finalized general election matchups in Montana and South Dakota, where little-known Democrats earned their party's nominations. But in both states, higher-profile independent candidates also qualified for the general election ballot. It's much the same in Idaho and Nebraska, which held Senate primaries last month, Democratic leaders in Nebraska in particular, openly endorsing the independent candidate Dan Osborne over their own party's nominee because, well, she has promised to drop out in order to make it easier for Osborne to win. In Montana, Independence, Seth Bodnar, a former University of Montana president, looks like he is the strongest opponent to Republican Kurt Alm, at least on paper. The Trump-backed Alm, a former U.S. attorney who became the de facto Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Montana. When you'll recall, Senator Steve Daines dropped his candidacy just minutes before the filing deadline and engineered what the New York Times described as a switcheroo. In favor of this Kurt Alm guy who easily won the Republican nod on Tuesday. Oh, how fun. Just a little switcheroo, not at all a corrupt scheme. Bodner raised more money than all. The independent Bodner raised more money than all of the five Democratic primary candidates who ran on Tuesday combined. He has even significantly outraised the Trump-backed Alm to date. For the record, Al-a-Bankhead comfortably won. the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in Montana, even if much of the party appears to be backing Bodner instead this year, the independent candidate. In South Dakota, Senator Mike Rounds cruised to the Republican nomination on Tuesday. He will face Democrat Julian Wadion, if I'm saying that correctly. Apologies if I'm not.

He is a former highway patrol trooper, a small business owner. He ran unopposed on the Democratic side, but it's a former Democrat who is now running as an independent military veteran Brian Bangs, who some Democrats believe may be the tougher challenge to the incumbent Senator Rounds in what is now an otherwise very red state. In the great state of New Mexico. As we mentioned at the top of the show in some of the little good encouraging news there is today. In the great state of New Mexico, the stage is now set for Deb Holland to make American history this fall after Joe Biden's Interior Secretary easily secured the Democratic nomination for governor in the state on Tuesday where New Mexico's... Current Democratic governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, is now termed out after eight years in office there. Holland was the very first Native American to serve in a presidential cabinet as the Interior Secretary. And this fall, she could become the very first Native American woman in U.S. history to be elected governor. The former Interior Secretary celebrated on Tuesday night at a historic plaza in Albuquerque's Old Town neighborhood where supporters gathered for a mariachi band, traditional hoop dancing, and a prayer in Tiwa, one of many native languages spoke among tribes in the state. And as I mentioned, some of the rare good news on Tuesday night. Regardless of whether you're a Republican and independent, a Democrat, we all care about the same things. We want our kids to thrive. We want our kids to have a quality public education. We want every New Mexican to have health care. Everybody wants to feel safe in their neighborhoods, and everybody wants to be able to afford to put a hot meal on their table every night and have a roof over their children's heads. Those issues transcend whatever political spectrum we're trying to slice and dice people into. And so those are the things that all be focused on for New Mexico and for New Mexicans. That was Deb Holland after winning the Democratic nomination on Tuesday in New Mexico for governors. She will face. Republican Gregory Hull in November after the mayor of Rio Rancho comfortably defeated two opponents for the GOP nod on Tuesday. We wish him luck, of course, as the state continues its move to the left in recent years. By way of example, Daniel Nishanian of the Progressive Boltz magazine noted in his election coverage on Blue Sky last night. He... tweets there, posts there as Daniel. You should definitely follow him. Yes. He noted that three former Democratic lawmakers in New Mexico ran for their old seats. They were all conservative Democrats who'd opposed legislation like abortion rights, paid sick leave, automatic voter registration. All three of those conservative former Democratic lawmakers lost on Tuesday.

Two of them against progressive incumbents and won in an open race. OK-dokey then. So the progressives won on that. They did indeed. All right. So that's New Mexico. Which all brings us to California, the great golden state where, though it was the biggest state with elections this week, by far, it is also in several ways the most difficult to cover the day after, in particular because election officials take such time and care, counting our votes, prioritizing accuracy and inclusion over speed. As we go to air, almost a full day later, we still have just 55% of the vote tabulated across much of the state. It's about 95% in all of the other states that had elections on Tuesday. Yeah, but remember also California, almost 40 million people. So that's a lot more votes than most other states have to count. And with 55% of the vote tabulated only, it also means it's still too early to call all of the winners in some of the state's biggest contests on Tuesday. California, of course, accepts a vote by mail ballots that are postmarked by Election Day. They can still come in. days after the election and still be counted, which makes complete sense, because why would you punish someone who voted on time by election day? Why would you punish them just because the post office is slow in delivering their ballot? And because the care. that most Californians, most California counties take in verifying our mail-in ballots, and we now have a whole lot of them. Counting might take as long as 30 days after an election as each envelope is opened and verified, etc. None of that. is made any easier by the fact that there were 61 candidates on the ballot in the highest profile race on Tuesday in California. The race for governor to fill the seat being vacated by the termed out Democrat Gavin Newsom. And most of the Democrats in the ballot sort of helped to split the vote. 24 of them, in fact, were on Tuesday's ballot along with in the same race, the same contest, with 12 Republicans. Only two of those Republicans, however, were considered to be serious contenders in any way, shape, or form, even if they're not necessarily serious people. There were also, there was one libertarian, one peace and freedom candidate, 23.

No party preference candidates on all on the same ballot. And while results are still coming in, as noted, less than 55% of the vote tallied as of about an hour or so ago. That means we don't yet have any calls made officially in the race, at least not yet. Though the contours may, I emphasize may. Be coming into view in the governor's race where all candidates from all parties ran in the same race and the top two vote getters of any party will go on to compete in November's general elections. What I believe we do know at this hour, barring any unheard of surprises, is that Democrats managed to avoid the worst case scenario that had caused so much hand-wringing. just a month or two ago when it appeared quite possible that the Democratic vote was split so thinly with no clear frontrunner that the two leading Republicans could both end up winning the top two slots and going on to November to compete against each other without a Democratic candidate on the ballot in the governor's race. in California, in what is, as you know, a very blue state. That worst case scenario, at least, for Democrats seems to have been avoided. For the record, registered Democrats make up about 45% of the electorate. Republicans comprise about 25%. So Democrats outnumber Republicans by almost 2 to 1. But about 27% of voters are registered as no party preference with about 3% then registered to other parties, green, libertarian, peace and freedom, etc. But yeah, that worst case scenario for Democrats of two Republicans and zero Democrats on the ballot. For California governor this year, at least that appears to have been avoided on Tuesday, we think. With many ballots still left to be counted, three candidates emerged at the top. The Trump endorsed Republican and former Fox News host, Steve Hilton. Democratic former Congressman and State Attorney General and Joe Biden's Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and billionaire activist crusader Tom Steyer. Those three, they appear to round out the top three slots at this hour as they each vie for one of the two top slots that are available to allow them to go on to November. Where it is believed that a Democrat is likely to win. If there is one on the ballot, of course, if there are two Democrats on the ballot this November, well, the question will be which one. But for now, the Republican Hilton is leading the field with just under 28% of the vote. He is trailed closely by Beseta.

At just over 25, who has just over 25% of the votes, Tom Steyer is running third at the moment with just under 20% of the vote. But again, just 55% counted. So those numbers could shake up a bit. We'll see. While Hilton and Xavier Becerra are expressing confidence that they will come out on top. Among the reasons that Tom Steyer, who spent some $200 million of his own money on his own campaign outspending, I believe, all of the other candidates combined, one of the reasons that he has yet to give up the ghost here is because the contest was so unclear for so many weeks with so little sign of a frontrunner for much of the race. particularly after the disgraced Democrat Eric Swalwell dropped out that many Democrats waited until very, very late in the contest to cast their vote, hoping to try and vote strategically. For one of the Democratic frontrunners in order to assure that Democrats did not get locked out entirely this fall by the two leading Republican candidates. Tom Steyer cast himself as a progressive outsider uniquely capable of shaking up the status quo in Sacramento with a campaign defined by the... proposition of a billionaire arguing that billionaires and corporations should pay more in taxes. He also promised to take on the fossil fuel industry after being years of, I think it's fair to say, being a champion of climate change causes. Oh, definitely. and the move away from fossil fuels. He is definitely a climate champion. He spoke about that more directly than any other candidate in the race, at least at the top of near the, you know, the top of the race. On Tuesday night, Tom Steyer told supporters in San Francisco, quote, it may take some time to figure out where this is going. We're going to wait until every ballot is counted. We're going to give democracy time to work. As it should be. Yes, I greatly appreciate that. So, if anything, it appears at least that one Democrat will appear on the ballot. The big question seems to be whether it will be one or two, with Tom Steyer somehow making a big comeback with late arriving ballots as difficult as that feels like it would be to happen. So results in any event on Tuesday were clear enough that... Three of the major Democratic candidates, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, former congresswoman Katie Porter, and former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villegroosa.

All conceded the race shortly after the polls closed. Still, much could change in the days and weeks ahead. We will see Bessetta had languished near the bottom of public polls and faced calls from some Democrats to abandon his campaign just weeks ago in order to help consolidate the field. I'm sure he's glad he didn't now. Instead, he mounted a late surge. He presented himself as an experienced public service at a moment of deep economic and political uncertainty, to say the least, by way of contrast with Tom Steyer, who has never served in public office. And by the final weeks of the campaign, Xavier Becerra had climbed into contention, and according to a number of polls before Election Day, climbed into first place, where he now sits at least the top of the other Democratic contenders in the race for now. Quote, While I take nothing for granted, he told his supporters on Tuesday night, he added, quote, there are lots of ballots left to be counted. It appears that we are on track nonetheless to advance in November. For the record, Xavier Becerra, the former state attorney general and former cabinet member in the Biden administration, would be the first Latino governor in the state of California since 1875. if he ends up both running and winning this fall. The other big race under a national spotlight in California on Tuesday was the L.A. mayoral race where Democratic Mayor Karen Bass, no pun intended, was under fire for, among other things, her handling of the devastating L.A. fires. Just over a year ago. Here, too, though, there was a large field of candidates angling for the top two slots in a November general election. But with just about 60% of the vote in L.A. at last check, Bass appeared to be outperforming her pre-election polling, currently taking about 35% of the vote in her re-election bid. With the biggest question of the night being whether right-wing Maga dude and former reality TV... bad guy antagonist Spencer Pratt of the Hills, which I never watched, did you? No. Whether Spencer Pratt will make that second slot, Pratt lost his house in the Palisades fire. He sort of blames Bass for her handling of it all. Currently, he is in second place with about 60% of the vote counted. We will see whether currently third place progressive city council member and former Bass ally, Nithya Raman, will be able to move into second place. She actually endorsed Karen Bass before deciding to enter the race against her herself. So as we go to air, as noted, Karen Bass is at 35% of the tabulated vote. Pratt reportedly carrying just over 30% and Nithya Raman is in third place.

with just over 22%. And yes, Desi Doyen, I know I gotta get out. We'll see what happens with all of it. We will indeed. Hey, thanks to everybody for bearing with us today. Thanks to Desi Doyen, our producer, and to all of you for spending a portion of your day or night with us. Missed any portion of today's show, download it for free at bradblog.com. Hit a donate button when you stop by if you don't mind to help us continue our work here. Drop me email. I'm Bradcast at Bradblog.com and on the... social media as I am the Brad blog we'll see you there until we see you here again hopefully tomorrow I'm Brad Friedman good luck world You're listening to the Bradcast. We are 100% listener supported thanks to listeners like you, who stopped by bradblog.com slash donate.