News

“Perception is reality.” This oft-cited idea, popularized in the 1980s by political strategist Lee Atwater, underscores a fundamental truth: how people interpret events shape their beliefs, actions, and trust in institutions.

In the realm of elections, few phrases capture the current divide in California better. When President Donald Trump labels the state’s elections as “rigged,” reactions split sharply. Some see outright treason warranting extreme measures. Others dismiss it as conspiracy rhetoric. Many, however, point to democratically enacted laws that have transformed voting processes, creating what critics argue is legalized opportunity for manipulation.

California’s shift toward expansive mail-in voting accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic and has since become entrenched. State law now automatically sends mail-in ballots to all registered voters—approximately 23 million people. This universal system, combined with ballot harvesting, extended deadlines for ballots postmarked by Election Day but arriving days later, and other provisions, prioritize access over speed and timely verification.

Proponents hail it as modernizing democracy. Critics contend it rigs outcomes by design, not through illicit counting on Election Night, but via rules that favor late-arriving ballots in a state dominated by one party. Voter turnout in many California races, such as gubernatorial or mayoral contests, hovers around 25-30% in typical off-year or primary cycles. With millions of ballots mailed regardless of whether recipients still live at listed addresses, have moved, or passed away, the system leaves substantial room for ballots to surface weeks after polls close.

California has resisted full federal scrutiny of its voter rolls for years, defending its autonomy while maintaining lists that include outdated entries. At scale, this creates vulnerabilities. An apartment complex in a transient neighborhood might receive ballots for dozens of former residents over time. Those ballots often end up in community mailboxes, where anyone could theoretically handle them.

Non-governmental organizations have registered voters at unconventional addresses, including abandoned sites. In Los Angeles, stories circulate of ballots sent to derelict gas stations or homeless encampments. Who collects and returns them remains opaque. As counting drags on for weeks—perfectly legal under current state statutes—leads can evaporate.

This pattern fuels the “rigged” perception, even absent proven widespread fraud because fraud has been made legal. The June 2026 primary has exemplified this dynamic. In the Los Angeles mayoral race, reality TV personality and conservative challenger Spencer Pratt surged early on in-person and initial counts. Yet as mail-in ballots processed over subsequent days and weeks, progressive City Council member Nithya Raman overtook him, advancing to a runoff against incumbent Karen Bass.

Trump and supporters decried the shift as evidence of manipulation, noting how late ballots disproportionately benefited certain candidates. Similar dynamics appeared in the gubernatorial primary, where Republican Steve Hilton advanced to face Democrat Xavier Becerra despite prolonged counting.

Los Angeles serves as a testing ground for progressive policies: expansive social spending, priorities favoring migrants over longtime residents, and ambitious infrastructure like the troubled high-speed rail project that has consumed billions with little progress.

Pratt’s campaign highlighted these failures—government is charitable with funds for illegal immigrants while the Palisades Fire victims, lifelong Californians, lives went up in smoke. LA officials put “Americans last” in their own city. His message resonated with voters frustrated by taxes, homelessness, and ineffective governance, even in deep-blue LA.

Though Pratt did not advance, his visibility spotlighted systemic issues. While Pratt may not have won an election, in a broader sense he won for LA, California and America, by drawing attention to the race that would otherwise have been another quiet Democratic hold.

California’s model—universal mail ballots, permissive rules, and single-party dominance—functions as an incubator. If scaled nationally, it risks entrenching one-party rule where turnout games and legal loopholes replace competitive debate. Conservatives worry their voices will be structurally marginalized. Defenders argue safeguards like signature verification and postmark rules prevent abuse, and delays reflect thoroughness, not deceit.

Ultimately, the fraud debate in California transcends individual races. It centers on whether laws engineered for maximum participation have inadvertently—or intentionally—undermined confidence. Trump’s “rigged” label resonates because the system appears engineered to produce predictable outcomes in a state where Democrats control the machinery.

Cleaning voter rolls, tightening deadlines, and ensuring real-time transparency could restore faith without restricting access. Perception remains reality for millions. And, until California addresses the structural incentives that make late surges routine and skepticism inevitable, calls of “rigged” will persist.

Spencer Pratt’s campaign, though unsuccessful in advancing, ignited a conversation about putting Americans first in their own cities. No one should be ashamed of American’s and America being first. Securing election integrity is not partisan theater—it is essential to preserving a republic where every eligible voice truly counts. Without reform, the perception of rigging will continue to erode the reality of democratic consent.