LA Mayor's Race Called — Spencer Pratt Learns His Fate
Los Angeles, California - June 4, 2026
Los Angeles Mayoral Candidate Spencer Pratt Files Complaint Alleging Mayor Karen Bass Violated Election Law
Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt has filed a formal election complaint against Mayor Karen Bass, alleging that she violated California election laws by engaging in electioneering too close to a ballot drop box. Pratt, a reality television personality running as an Independent, made the announcement Tuesday on social media platform X.
The complaint centers on a campaign video posted by Bass in which she appears to encourage supporters to vote while standing near a ballot box. Pratt argued that the video shows Bass soliciting votes within 100 feet of the box, which is prohibited under state law.
“Electioneering within 100 feet of a ballot box is AGAINST THE LAW. Soliciting votes at a ballot box is AGAINST THE LAW,” Pratt wrote in his post. He stated that the complaint was filed to address what he described as a clear violation.
California law prohibits candidates and campaign workers from electioneering within 100 feet of a ballot drop box. The restriction is intended to prevent improper influence or intimidation of voters at voting locations.
Bass Campaign Response
A spokesperson for Mayor Bass rejected the allegations. Alex Stack told Fox News Digital that the complaint is false and that the campaign video was filmed in multiple locations, with one segment recorded more than 200 feet from the ballot box where signs were present, and another segment filmed next to the box without signs. Stack said the campaign follows election rules.
Pratt’s attorney, Peter McNulty, submitted the formal complaint and requested an official investigation into the matter. McNulty also indicated that a similar complaint had been filed with state authorities due to the seriousness of the allegations.
“This sort of activity in such close proximity to voters has the potential to intimidate and improperly influence voters; which is exactly why these laws and restrictions are in place to begin with,” McNulty wrote in the complaint.
Broader Context of the Race
The dispute adds to tensions in the Los Angeles mayoral race as ballots continue to be counted. Pratt’s campaign has linked the complaint to broader criticisms of Bass’s leadership, including public safety concerns in the city.
At this time, city and state election officials have not announced whether they will open a formal investigation into the complaint. The Bass campaign has maintained that the video complied with all applicable laws.
The complaint filing includes a request for authorities to examine the video and the circumstances of its production. Pratt has stated that he intends to pursue the matter to protect election integrity.
The allegations come during a competitive mayoral contest in which multiple candidates are vying for support ahead of the final certification of results. Both campaigns have continued to exchange statements regarding the complaint and its implications for the democratic process.
6-3 RULING - Supreme Court Deals Brutal Blow to Hakeem Jeffries
Washington, D.C. - June 5, 2026
Supreme Court Allows Alabama to Proceed with New Congressional Map for 2026 Midterms
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned 6-3 order on Tuesday permitting Alabama to use a newly enacted congressional district map in the 2026 midterm elections. The decision lifts a lower court injunction and is expected to result in a congressional delegation of six Republicans and one Democrat.
The ruling came after Alabama had already held its congressional primary elections in May. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation authorizing special elections in August for affected districts, contingent on final court approval of the map.
The order relied in part on the Purcell principle, which generally discourages federal courts from altering election rules close to an election. The majority stated that the district court had improperly intervened in Alabama’s efforts to conduct its elections under maps selected by the state’s elected representatives. The court noted that while federal courts should avoid last-minute changes, states retain authority to determine whether such adjustments serve their interests.
Connection to Voting Rights Act Precedent
The decision follows a 6-3 ruling issued by the Supreme Court on April 29 regarding the Voting Rights Act. That earlier decision established that claims alleging racial discrimination in districting generally require plaintiffs to demonstrate a strong inference of intentional discrimination before proceeding with litigation.
The current order addresses ongoing redistricting litigation in Alabama. The new map is anticipated to alter the composition of the state’s seven-member congressional delegation. Democratic Representatives Shomari Figures of the 2nd District and Terri Sewell of the 7th District are currently the only Black members of Alabama’s House delegation. The new configuration could affect representation in one of those districts.
Dissenting Opinion
The three liberal justices dissented from the unsigned order. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the majority’s approach had created turmoil and harm. She argued that the court was doubling down on prior decisions that she viewed as undermining protections under the Voting Rights Act.
Broader Redistricting Context
The Alabama case is one of several redistricting disputes before the Supreme Court involving states such as Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, and California. With control of the U.S. House expected to be closely contested, these cases have taken on added significance for both parties ahead of the November elections.
The Supreme Court’s recent interventions have already influenced district boundaries in multiple states. Additional litigation remains pending, and further developments could continue to shape the partisan balance of the House in the upcoming midterm cycle.
The Alabama order permits the state to move forward with its chosen map while legal proceedings on related matters continue. The full impact on the composition of Alabama’s congressional delegation will depend on the outcome of the August special elections and any subsequent legal challenges.
GHOST VOTERS' REVEALED — California Elections Rocked After Stunning Discovery
Sacramento, California - June 5, 2026
Lawsuit Filed Against California Secretary of State Alleging Failure to Remove Inactive Voter Registrations
A federal lawsuit has been filed against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber alleging that the state has failed to remove hundreds of thousands of inactive voter registrations from its rolls in violation of federal law. The complaint was brought by Orange County Supervisor Don Wagner, a Republican candidate for Secretary of State, and the American Independent Party of California, with assistance from Judicial Watch.
The lawsuit claims that California has not removed approximately 873,092 inactive voter registrations as required under the National Voter Registration Act. Federal law mandates that states remove certain registrations after voters fail to participate in multiple consecutive federal election cycles and do not respond to address verification notices.
Court filings state that more than 873,000 registrations remained on the rolls despite being inactive through at least three consecutive federal elections. The complaint further alleges that over 151,000 registrations remained active after four consecutive election cycles without voter participation.
California maintains more than 23 million registered voters, the largest voter registration system in the United States. Plaintiffs argue that the state’s practices violate requirements under the National Voter Registration Act for maintaining accurate voter lists.
Previous Actions and Current Allegations
In 2019, Judicial Watch reached a settlement with California and Los Angeles County that resulted in the removal of more than 1.2 million inactive voter registrations. The current lawsuit contends that similar issues persist across much of the state despite those prior efforts.
The complaint notes that 20 California counties removed 50 or fewer inactive registrations over a recent period, even as census data showed substantial population shifts and migration out of the state.
The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring California to implement a more aggressive program for removing registrations that no longer meet federal eligibility requirements. It also asks the court to prevent future violations of federal election law.
State Response and Context
California officials have maintained that the state’s election system includes multiple safeguards, including signature matching, voter identification checks where required, and criminal penalties for fraud. State representatives have stated that the system is secure and employs verification procedures designed to prevent illegal voting.
The lawsuit was filed amid ongoing scrutiny of California’s election processes. Recent incidents include damage to a mail ballot drop box that was vandalized and set on fire, as well as a report of an unsecured ballot center in the Bay Area discovered by a voter outside normal operating hours.
The case will proceed in federal court, where judges will evaluate whether California’s voter registration maintenance practices comply with federal requirements. The outcome could affect procedures ahead of future elections, including the November general election.
