The California jungle primaries were six days ago, but in light of the state’s heavy reliance on mail-in voting, it has taken until today for there to be clarity on the two marquee races.

For Governor, after Eric Swalwell’s implosion, Xavier Becerra managed to come out of the pack to be the Democratic frontrunner. and it’s been pretty clear since election night that he would be one of the two candidates in the general. The leader on election night was British-born Republican Steve Hilton, one of only two prominent Republicans on the 61-person ballot, versus five prominent Democrats. However, election watchers had warned of a “red mirage” in this year’s California returns, as Republicans were more likely to vote in person rather than by mail and, to the extent they voted by mail, were deemed more likely to have submitted their votes early. (The theory is that Democrats were waiting for the dust to settle in order to figure out how to cast their vote so as to avoid the potential debacle of having both Republican candidates advance.) As such, Becerra ultimately passed Hilton, and until today there was some hope that billionaire Tom Steyer, who spent close to $200 million of his own money, could also surpass Hilton. As such, California seems poised to have a Latino governor for the first time since 1875.

The other main race was for L.A. mayor, which was really a three-way race between the incumbent Kevin Bass, a Republican former reality TV star named Spencer Pratt, and a younger progressive councilwoman named Nithya Raman. It took five days for Raman to overtake Pratt for second, and one further day for her lead to look insurmountable. This sets up an interesting battle of older Black moderate versus younger South Asian progressive.

A particularly interesting Congressional primary was the California 6th, near Sacramento. As a result of Proposition 50, both the 6th and 3rd and now expected to be safe blue seats, even though previously one was blue and one was red. The incumbent Democrat in the 6th decided to instead run in the 3rd, while the incumbent in the 3rd — Kevin Kiley, who was elected as a Republican but became an independent in March — decided to run in the 6th. As such, the ballot in the 6th consists of a sitting independent Congressman, one Republican, and several Democrats. The nominal Republican on the ballot, a man named Michael Stansfield, did not have a campaign website, lawn signs, or ads. However, as the only person on the ballot with an “R” next to his name, coming out of election night he was poised to advance, which would have been disastrous for Democrats. Several days later, however, he has slipped to 3rd behind one of the Democrats, former State Senator Richard Pan, who would be the favorite to win in the fall assuming he makes the general.

A few assorted developments on other fronts:

Kennedy Center. Congresswoman Joyce Beatty (D-OH), an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center’s Board of Trustees, had sued over three issues relating to Trump’s takeover of the Kennedy Center: the Board’s decision to strip her and other ex officio trustees of their voting rights; the Board’s decision to append Trump’s name to the Center in violation of federal law; and the Board’s decisionmaking process around the announced two-year closure of the Center for major renovations effective in July 2026. Last week a federal judge ruled largely in the Congresswoman’s favor in Beatty v. Trump, ruling that: the name must be changed back; the ex officio trustees must be allowed to vote; and the process by which the Board reached the decision to close the Center for two years was faulty. Trump promptly threw a hissy fit.

East Wing Ballroom. Last week the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in the administration’s appeal of the preliminary injunction granted two months ago in National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service, a case challenging Trump’s actions to tear down the East Wing of the White House to build a ballroom (on top of a new bunker). The administration’s position appears to be that no court can review the administration’s actions in this matter, or similar hypothetical matters such as tearing down the Statue of Liberty.

Anti-Weaponization Fund. In an unexpected development, the judge who had been assigned Trump’s now-“settled” lawsuit against the IRS has called for a hearing this week around the legality of the so-called $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund” created as part of the “settlement”. The administration has suggested that the fund itself may not come to pass, but the agreement to give Trump immunity from tax audits remains intact for now. In not-unrelated news, Trump recently announced his intention to nominate Acting AG Blanche as the permanent replacement for Bondi; I have doubts as to whether that nomination is viable.

H-1B Reform. A federal judge today, in a case known as California v. Mullin, struck down the $100,000 fee for new H-1B visas that the administration imposed back in September. Interestingly to me, the decision relies heavily on the landmark ACA SCOTUS case, NFIB v. Sebelius, in concluding that this $100,000 “fee” is properly thought of as a “tax” and hence that the President lacked the authority to impose it.

Tariffs. Three different things going on. First, the administration has belatedly decided it will appeal, to the Federal Circuit, the Court of International Trade’s order requiring universal refunds of the tariffs that SCOTUS found unlawful in Learning Resources, even though it had already started the administrative process of complying with that order. Second, we’re still waiting for Federal Circuit action on the more recent CIT ruling regarding the Section 122 tariffs. Third, citing authority under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the administration has recently proposed new tariffs on 60 economies including Canada, China, the E.U., Japan, and the U.K., on the grounds that these economies have “failed to effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor”. Unlike the Section 122 tariffs, which are time-limited, the authority to enact Section 301 tariffs is open-ended, but it requires investigations by the United States Trade Representative as a prerequisite.