Vance: Iran deal ‘win-win’ for Americans, conditioned on Iran’s behavior

(The Center Square) – Illinois state Rep. Chris Miller says Gov. J.B. Pritzker should address the political motivations behind a Grant Park cross burning after the University of Illinois Chicago student accused in the incident said it was intended as a protest against the Trump administration.

Pritzker condemned the June 10 incident on social media after reports emerged that a burning cross had been found in Chicago's Grant Park.

"Let me be clear that hate has no home here in Illinois," Pritzker wrote. "This symbol has one purpose: to stir up intimidation and terror. We will not be silent — those responsible must be held accountable."

Authorities later identified 21-year-old University of Illinois Chicago student Merlin Lu as the person responsible.

Lu told media outlets he placed a red MAGA-style hat on top of the cross before setting it ablaze as a protest against what he described as "MAGA Christian nationalist" politics. He said he was unaware of the historical racial significance associated with cross burnings and insisted the demonstration was not racially motivated.

Speaking with The Center Square, Miller said the incident was clearly political and questioned whether Pritzker would condemn anti-Trump sentiment with the same force he used to denounce the initial reports of a cross burning.

"I look forward to J.B. Pritzker holding Merlin Lu accountable for MAGA hate because MAGA hate shouldn't have a home here in Illinois, right?" Miller said.

Miller argued that the student's actions were influenced by political rhetoric directed at President Donald Trump and his supporters.

"Obviously, this wasn't intended to be a hate crime. This was politically motivated, and it's all the direct result of the dangerous rhetoric that's been spewed by these people," Miller said.

The Republican lawmaker also blamed what he described as ideological influences on college campuses, saying young people are often more susceptible to political activism because of their lack of life experience.

Asked whether Pritzker should specifically condemn the anti-Trump message behind the protest, Miller said, "I think it's a no-brainer," arguing the governor reacted before all the facts surrounding the incident were known.

Miller further contended that the controversy has distracted from issues Illinois residents care more about, including taxes, energy costs and public safety.

"I would guess that a very, very small percentage of Illinoisans would even care that this guy burned a MAGA hat," Miller said. "They're worried about how they're going to pay their real estate tax bill. They're worried about the high escalating cost of energy. They're worried about safer communities."

Pritzker's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether the governor's position changed after Lu publicly explained his motivations.

Cross burnings have historically been associated with racial intimidation and white supremacist groups in the United States, particularly the Ku Klux Klan. However, Lu has publicly stated that his actions were intended as a political protest against the Trump administration rather than a racially motivated act.

(The Center Square) – A U.S. Senate bill would give the federal government a 50% ownership stake in the largest artificial intelligence companies, creating a sovereign wealth fund its sponsor estimates would be worth $7 trillion. One policy analyst called the idea "nutty" while others said it would put American AI companies at a combative disadvantage and would lead to offshoring.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, which would impose a one-time 50% tax on AI company stock and deposit those shares into a fund that could pay every American more than $1,000 annually.

Sanders said AI was built on "the collective knowledge of humanity and the creative work of tens of millions of people" and that the public deserves a direct ownership stake in the companies that have profited from it.

The fund would be managed by a seven-member independent commission, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, with authority to use its voting shares to block corporate decisions it determines hurt the American people.

The bill would also require large companies that operate both AI and non-AI businesses to separate those operations, with the public receiving an ownership stake in the AI side.

The bill would apply to AI companies with at least $200 million in annual revenue, and any new company that reaches that threshold would also be subject to the stock transfer. OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta and Google each reported well over $200 million in AI-related revenue in 2025, according to public financial reports and company statements.

The largest AI companies named in the legislation did not respond to questions about how the bill would affect their operations by deadline.

The bill had not been assigned a number or referred to committee as of Friday afternoon. No cosponsors were listed.

Sanders said his proposal goes further than what President Donald Trump or AI company executives have suggested, describing their approach as offering "5% of our profits back into the government" rather than direct public ownership.

Trump said June 5 that a government stake in AI firms could be "a partnership with the American public" and that his administration would "look into" the concept.

Trump signed an executive order in February 2025 directing his administration to develop a plan for a sovereign wealth fund, though no fund has been established.

OpenAI proposed in its April policy paper "Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age" a public wealth fund that would provide every citizen "a stake in AI-driven economic growth." Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei wrote recently that universal basic income "could be financed through taxes on relevant companies."

Elon Musk, owner of xAI, said in an April post on X that "universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI."

Sanders estimates the fund would be worth about $7 trillion at current valuations. A 5% annual dividend could generate direct payments of more than $1,000 to every American – about $1,045 per person, based on 5% of the estimated $7 trillion fund divided by the current U.S. population – with additional gains directed toward health care, education and housing. If AI company valuations decline, Sanders said, the companies would bear the losses, not the federal government.

Sanders said the bill would ensure AI wealth benefits the public rather than shareholders.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, R-S.C., said in opening remarks at a June 11 Banking Committee hearing on AI that the committee's primary objectives are "protecting consumers and American workers, supporting domestic innovation, and ensuring that AI technology is developed by American companies with American values rather than ceding leadership to China."

Scott's office and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.

Tad DeHaven, a Cato Institute policy analyst who studies government taxation and spending, wrote this month that Sanders "wants political control" over AI companies through voting shares and board representation, and warned that Trump's own pursuit of government equity stakes in private companies had "opened the door" for the Sanders proposal.

Phillip Magness, an Independent Institute economist who studies taxation and capital markets, said the one-time stock transfer carries its own capital flight risks.

"Since the tech industry tends to be highly mobile and under intense competition from abroad, a tax of this type could trigger offshoring to reduce the tax burden, or could place AI companies that remain in the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage against the rest of the world," he told The Center Square.

"Legislators seeking to justify new and expansive forms of taxation almost always overestimate their ability to raise revenue," he said. "Sanders is likely basing his AI company tax proposal on current market valuations, which would also be adversely affected by the implementation of the same measure."

Bruce Schneier, a Harvard fellow and security technologist who has written extensively on AI policy and technology governance, called the approach "absolutely nutty," saying the bill would not achieve Sanders' goal of democratic control over AI development.

"Control will be maintained by the tech oligarchs," Schneier told The Center Square. "The only difference is that the government will now have a conflict of interest when it comes time to regulate them."

Schneier said the better approach is to tax AI companies directly to return profits to the public, and separately create a government-run public AI option that operates outside the for-profit market.

"Let government do what it does best, and create a thing that lives outside of the for-profit market system," he told The Center Square. "The goal here isn't to replace corporate AI, but to provide an alternative."

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-6-26 in May directing state agencies to evaluate policies to address AI-related job losses, including whether residents should receive direct ownership stakes in companies or funds generating AI-driven income.

(The Center Square) – Most Americans say they do not trust artificial intelligence to provide accurate and unbiased information about politics and current events, according to a new poll.

The Center Square’s Voters Voice Poll, conducted by Noble Predictive Insights, found 57% of American voters either trust AI “not very much” or “not at all” when it comes to providing accurate and unbiased information. Among the split, 29% of voters said they did not trust it “very much” and 28% of voters said they did not trust it “at all.”

The poll, conducted June 1 to June 4, surveyed 2,585 respondents about their opinions on a wide range of issues, including artificial intelligence. Among respondents, 915 identified as Republicans, 1,013 identified as Democrats, and 297 identified as true independent voters, which means they did not lean toward either party when asked.

Across partisan divides, respondents showed relatively similar stances on trust in AI for information. About 39% of Republicans said they trust AI “a great deal” for information on politics and current events, while 34% of Democrats said the same.

About 28% of True independent voters said they would trust AI “a great deal” for information on politics and current events.

The biggest divide in trust of AI came between younger and older respondents. About 54% of respondents ages 18-29 do not have much trust for AI, compared to 64% of respondents older than 65.

Mike Noble, founder of Noble Predictive Insights, said the difference in trust between younger and older generations comes down to the prevalence of technology.

“There’s a big gap between the two on their technological experience,” Noble told The Center Square. “Older folks are definitely much less trustworthy when it comes to AI being able to deliver the news.”

However, Noble noted that trust for AI to deliver the news overall is extremely low, regardless of the demographic.

Respondents with greater educational backgrounds and higher household incomes were more likely to trust AI “a great deal” to deliver information on politics and current events. About 40% of respondents with a college degree said they trust AI “a great deal” to deliver news and events, compared to 34% of respondents with no college degree who said the same.

“The lower education you have, the less kind of plugged in you are, the more concerned you are regarding it,” Noble said.

Roughly 42% of respondents with a household income above $100,000 per year said they trust AI “a great deal” to deliver information on politics and current events, compared to 32% of respondents with a household income under $50,000 per year who said the same.

Noble emphasized the trust among younger respondents as key to understanding the acceptance of AI. However, he said it will likely not be used to replace traditional news anytime soon.

“18-29 [year olds] grew up with it, they're just more open to it, and again, just have leaned on it more,” Noble said.

(The Center Square) – Six in 10 American voters say the country is heading in the wrong direction before this year's midterm elections, an increase from three months ago, according to a new national poll.

The Center Square Voters' Voice Poll found 60% of registered voters say the country is going in the wrong direction, up from 53% in March. Just 28% say things are going in the right direction, down from 36% in March. Eleven percent were not sure.

Among true independents, those who decline to lean toward either major party, nearly seven in 10 say the country is on the wrong track.

The generic congressional ballot has shifted from a one-point Democratic advantage in March to a six-point Democratic advantage in June. A Democratic House majority would control the chamber's floor agenda, all committee and subcommittee chairmanships and the origination of revenue legislation, giving Democrats influence over trillions of dollars in federal spending.

Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta who specializes in elections and voting behavior, said the generic ballot margin is significant.

"Where you have Democrats leading by six, seven, eight points on the generic ballot, the House of Representatives is almost certainly going to flip," he told The Center Square. "Democrats only need to pick up three seats."

Republicans currently hold a 218-215 majority in the House, with one vacant seat, according to the House Press Gallery.

Abramowitz said the bigger question is whether the wave will be large enough to give Democrats control of the Senate, which would require picking up at least four seats while holding all of their current 47, according to the U.S. Senate Press Gallery.

The shift comes as inflation and energy costs continue to weigh on American households. Gas prices have dropped to $3.97 per gallon nationally over the past week, but that's still up more than a dollar a gallon from $2.94 when Operation Epic Fury, the U.S. military conflict with Iran, began in February, according to AAA and U.S. Energy Information Administration data. Overall consumer prices rose 4.2% over the past year, with energy costs up 23.5%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Real wages have fallen back to where they stood when President Donald Trump took office.

Mike Noble, founder of Noble Predictive Insights, which conducted the poll, said voters are feeling the economic pain acutely. Inflation is getting worse, he said. Among true independents, Noble said the economic anxiety is especially pronounced, and Republicans face a growing problem if the pain points continue or worsen before November.

Benjamin Schneer, an associate professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, said the political environment is not favorable for Republicans. It is a long-standing pattern that the party in power struggles in midterm years, he said, and 2026 appears it will not be an exception. The majority in the House is so narrow that even a modest swing toward Democrats puts it at risk of shifting hands.

Schneer said the wrong track numbers reflect voter worries about inflation and the conflict in Iran.

"I do think the direction of the change is informative," he told The Center Square. "It suggests the same forces that were already dragging on the chances for Republicans to hold onto their majority have continued. The question will be if anything meaningful changes before November."

Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a nonprofit public policy research organization, and an expert in election law and redistricting, said wrong track numbers historically reflect voter sentiment toward the party in power.

"Numbers as lopsided as those in the new poll are not unprecedented, but they are a big warning signal for the party in power," he told The Center Square. "High wrong-track numbers in 2024 prefigured voters' turn against Joe Biden and his Democrats."

Olson said the numbers suggest a bad year for Republicans under the traditional rules of politics, but questioned whether those rules still apply. Olson said Republicans benefit on the House side from what he described as aggressive mid-cycle gerrymandering. More than a quarter of all congressional seats have been redrawn mid-decade, according to a May analysis by Schneer. Republicans also benefit on the Senate side from a lack of relatively easy Democratic pickups among seats up for a vote.

Olson said one long-term trend is that races for the House and Senate keep getting more nationalized, meaning state and local issues take a back seat to national politics. The Republican Party is identified with Trump personally as never before, he said, and Trump's declining personal numbers could make things more difficult for Republican candidates across the country.

The NRCC, the congressional Republican campaign committee, said Republicans are focused on fixing problems left by the previous administration.

"Joe Biden and Democrats left behind a massive mess, and Republicans have been laser-focused on fixing the problems they created," spokesman Mike Marinella told The Center Square. "From lowering costs to securing the border, Republicans are working every day to get the country back on the right track for American families."

Several congressional offices from both parties did not respond to requests for comment.

The DCCC, the congressional Democratic campaign committee, said Republican economic failures are driving voter dissatisfaction.

"Hardworking families are getting squeezed from the gas station to the grocery store because House Republicans broke their promise to lower costs," spokesman Aidan Johnson told The Center Square. "It's no wonder Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction, and why they're ready to elect Democrats to get it back on track."

Throughout the 2024 presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump repeatedly promised to bring prices down after taking office. Consumer prices have risen 4.2% over the past year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The White House said it expects prices to fall once the Iran conflict is resolved, and credited the administration's deregulation, tax cuts, and energy policies for economic progress prior to the conflict.

Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows real wages had fallen back to where they stood when Trump took office by May 2026.

Noble Predictive Insights conducted the poll from June 1-4, 2026. It surveyed registered voters nationally via opt-in online panel and text-to-web cell phone messages. The sample included 2,585 respondents, including 915 Republicans, 1,013 Democrats, and 297 True Independents. The margin of error is plus or minus 1.93%. It is one of the most comprehensive tracking polls in the U.S.

(The Center Square) - President Donald Trump shared a look at a new aircraft with The Center Square on Friday that will serve as Air Force One. 

The Air Force's VC-25B Bridge aircraft arrived at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on Friday. The aircraft will need to go through several commissioning flights that serve as the "final exam" for aircraft modification. 

The aircraft, a $400 million plane gifted from officials in Qatar last year, will be used to relieve pressure on the president's fleet. Trump said the aircraft is more than double the size of the previous model. 

"Our country has to be represented properly," Trump said. "We have the greatest aircraft anywhere in the world."

Trump said he would use the aircraft much more in the future. He said he would use it to travel to Turkey in July for a NATO summit and a meeting in China. He did not specify when the meeting in China would occur.

"The quality of the materials, the quality of the engines, is the best in the world," Trump said. "I want to thank the Emir of Qatar."

Air Force officials emphasized the aircraft was brought to relieve pressure on the president's fleet of vehicles. 

“The safety and security of the commander in chief is our highest priority," said Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink. "From the beginning, we meticulously evaluated every requirement to accelerate delivery while maintaining the high standards expected of the presidential mission. This effort proves that the U.S. Air Force can move fast without sacrificing quality, security, or reliability."

Trump said the aircraft would lead a flyover in Washington, D.C., on July 4th. 

"This plane was transformed into a flying White House at a level of luxury nobody has ever seen before," Trump said. 

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Department of Education is reducing student loan interest rates for borrowers, but critics argue the move could cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

The Education Department announced this week that federal student loan borrowers enrolled in automatic payments will be eligible for a 1% interest rate reduction beginning July 1.

Borrowers who plan to enroll in auto pay by Sept. 30, 2026, and those who are enrolled, will receive this reduction in the interest rate through June 30, 2028. 

Federal student loan interest rates currently range from 6.39% to 7.94% for undergraduate and graduate borrowers. The average student loan balance in the U.S. is about $40,000, while the federal student loan portfolio totals approximately $1.8 trillion.

Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent said the Trump administration's temporary student loan interest rate reduction is intended to help borrowers manage repayment and explore affordable repayment plan options.

Before COVID-19, over 80% of student loan borrowers were actively in repayment plans and currently, due to the previous administration's policies on student loan forgiveness programs, only 40% are enrolled in either auto pay to active repayment. 

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, criticized the Education Department's new policy.

According to the organization, the change could cost taxpayers at least $5 billion and effectively amounts to a form of student debt cancellation because it reduces the total amount borrowers repay over the life of their loans rather than lowering monthly payments.

CRFB President Maya MacGuineas said the policy primarily benefits borrowers who are already making payments on their loans.

“Make no mistake: Quadrupling the auto-pay incentive is debt cancellation by another name. And worse, it’s targeted at people already making repayments,” MacGuineas said. “The auto-pay interest deductions don't even reduce monthly payments or improve affordability — they just wipe out debt balances, especially for high-earning professionals that are already doing quite well.”  

MacGuineas said expanding the discount could set a precedent for future administrations to further reduce or eliminate student loan interest rates through executive action.

Instead of expanding loan benefits, the CRFB said the Trump administration should focus on addressing the projected $100 billion shortfall in the Pell Grant program, which could reduce aid for low-income students.

(The Center Square) – A member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is frustrated with state laws allowing multiple homes to be built on single-home sites in a community rebuilding after the Eaton Fire. One law permits up to 10 homes.

Supervisor Kathryn Barger said she wants lawmakers to hear from Altadena residents at two July 1 hearings. Sitting next to Pasadena, Altadena is an unincorporated community that was hit hard by the devastating Eaton Fire in January 2025. The fire in the Altadena/Pasadena area burned 14,021 acres and destroyed 9,418 structures, as reported by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Barger represents Altadena on the board governing Los Angeles County.

(The Center Square) – California drivers can expect the state’s gas tax to go up 2.2 cents on July 1, which will bring the total tax to 63.4 cents a gallon.

That will drive up gas prices in the Golden State, which consistently has the nation's highest prices, even further.

“For our hardworking California families - at a time when Democrats and Republicans say the No. 1 issue is affordability - we’re making it harder to make ends meet,” Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach, told The Center Square. “Our gas prices are astronomically high because of taxes - and also because we lost 20% of our oil production and we rely almost exclusively on foreign oil.”

Several other states, Strickland said, suspended their state gas taxes because gas prices in those states also rose. In Georgia, the Legislature temporarily suspended the Peach State’s gas tax after prices surpassed $3 a gallon, far lower than gas prices in California, according to previous reporting by The Center Square.

“Higher gas prices not only hurt those folks who use it at the pump, but also makes groceries cost a lot more,” Strickland said. “Your eggs, your milk, your vegetables, your fruit, higher gas prices get pushed on that. So you have higher grocery costs because of this.”

According to AAA, California’s gas prices went down slightly to $5.61 a gallon on Friday - down from $5.64 a gallon on Thursday. That itself is down from the average price of gas in California one month ago, when prices hit $6.15 a gallon. The national average on Friday was $3.97 a gallon.

Mono County had the most expensive gas prices in California on Friday, according to AAA, which saw the average gallon of gas cost drivers $6.88. Other counties that saw some of the highest gas prices in the state on Friday were Inyo County, on the Nevada border and Sierra County in Northern California, at $6.22 a gallon. Trinity County, also in Northern California, saw average prices around $6.14 a gallon, while the counties of Humboldt and Nevada saw gas prices hover just over $6.

The lowest gas prices in the state were in the Northern California county of Yuba, which saw gas prices around $5.38 a gallon. Other counties in the southernmost part of the state saw slightly higher gas prices. San Bernardino County drivers paid $5.46 a gallon on Friday, while Imperial County saw an average of $5.47.

The gas tax increase could hurt drivers in rural communities the hardest, Strickland told The Center Square.

“They have to drive a lot,”  senator said. “They have to drive more. It’s affecting everybody across the state of California. Look at what gas prices do. They fall disproportionately on those hardworking families that are living paycheck to paycheck.”

Representatives from AAA and the consumer savings company GasBuddy did not respond to The Center Square on Friday. California lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who have authored gas-related legislation also did not respond to The Center Square.

(The Center Square) – Newly introduced legislation to ban members of Congress from betting in prediction markets should be expanded to include members of all three branches of the federal government, a government accountability group said.

Prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi, which allow people to trade on the outcome of real-world events, have become a political flashpoint in recent months.

Government watchdogs like Project on Government Oversight have criticized how prediction markets offer U.S. lawmakers, who already engage in stock trading, yet another way to profit off of information not available to the public.

The Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act, introduced by U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., forbids members of Congress, their spouses, or their dependent children from betting on the outcome of a specific government policy or action, or “any other event which has come to the attention of a covered individual as a result, directly or indirectly, of the service of a Member of Congress.”

Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, POGO's interim vice president of Policy and Government Affairs, told The Center Square that the bill, though narrow in scope, is ultimately “a step in the right direction.”

“If there is an opportunity to [address the issue] piecemeal by banning one cohort of federal officials and then moving on to the next – if that's what we have to do, then that's what we have to do,” Hedtler-Gaudette said. “It's a lot better than the status quo, which is that we have almost no strong conflicts of interest restrictions for anybody in the federal government.”

The legislation builds upon Steil’s Stop Insider Trading Act, which passed out of the House Administration Committee in January but has seen no further advancement in the 119th Congress.

Hedtler-Gaudette believes that bans on both insider trading and bidding are critical for public restoring trust in Congress.

“If you introduce these personal financial opportunities to gain and to self-deal, you create a trust problem, and we already have an issue with the public not having a ton of confidence in what people do in the government,” he said. “When you see things like this cropping up, it corrodes that already pretty dismal trust in the relationship between the governing and the governed.”

As of mid-June, Americans’ approval rating of Congress sits at a dismal 24%, according to Ballotpedia’s Polling Index.

Prediction market bidding by government employees with insider information also poses a danger of influencing policy decisions, Hedtler-Gaudette added.

“The danger that we see with prediction markets is that they just provide too many opportunities to game the system with inside information,” he said. “It creates an uneven playing field that also has the potential to corrupt public policy making. And at the end of the day, government officials, especially elected ones, are there to represent their constituents, and whatever they're doing – taking votes, conducting legislation, conducting oversight – they're supposed to be doing it in the interest of the public.”

The Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act doesn’t include congressional staff and only imposes a civil penalty for violations – a fine of $2,000 or 10% of the value of the prohibited transaction, whichever is greater, as well as the net gain realized from the transaction.

POGO policy analyst Janice Luong, who has written on the issue of insider bidding and petitioned House lawmakers to address it, told The Center Square that the organization ultimately desires a ban that covers employees in all branches of government.

“We agree that public officials and the staff who serve them must act independently of personal financial interests,” Luong said. “They should not use their position, access to non-public information, or official decision-making authority to seek personal gain from trading on prediction markets.”

POGO has also called on Congress to take things a step further and government actions and elections to the list of prediction contracts that are currently prohibited, which includes terrorism, war, assassination, gaming, or other activities “deemed contrary to the public interest”.

A recent analysis by the Anti-Corruption Data Collective tracked “suspicious, highly profitable wagers linked to military activity, notably in Venezuela and Iran,” finding that over $9.3 million has been bet in successful “long shot bets” on military markets on Polymarket.

The coalition published the report following the news that an U.S. Army Special Forces soldier allegedly used classified military intelligence to place winning bets on a prediction market platform. Master Sgt. Gannon Ken Van Dyke, who has entered a not guilty plea, is set to go on trial Dec. 7.

"Given recent developments like the Van Dyke cases and campaign staffers coming out about insider trading, it demands a more comprehensive solution," Luong said. "Congress can and should go further."

(The Center Square) - The Los Angeles City Council is facing criticism from a Republican Party leader after deciding to move forward with a Nov. 3 ballot initiative to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.

The council voted Thursday to put the measure on the general election ballot.

“Yesterday's vote by the LA City Council, a body that cannot keep its streets clean of filth, save the lives of broken drug-addicted souls in encampments, fight fires or stop crime, is an affront to all Americans,” Roxanne Hoge, Los Angeles County Republican Party chair, told The Center Square, answering questions by email.

Hoge, who's from Jamaica, said she believes the right to vote is a privilege reserved for American citizens.

“As a naturalized American citizen, the right to vote in this country's elections is incredibly important to me,” Hoge said Friday. “It is a privilege that is properly reserved for people who are either born here or love the U.S.A. enough to make a commitment to follow its laws and swear an oath to protect and defend and follow our constitution — and who then choose to register to vote.”

“Giving noncitizens the ability to vote in our elections is a logistical nightmare that would erode trust in our already-tainted system in California and is wrong,” Hoge added. 

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez of District 13 proposed the initiative, as previously reported by The Center Square.

Soto-Martinez cited other cities such as San Francisco, which allow noncitizen voting in local elections, as grounds for new voting laws in Los Angeles.

Soto-Martinez previously said at a Rules Committee meeting, that if his plan was passed by the council and later approved by voters, nothing would take effect until a future ordinance was adopted by the council and signed by the mayor.

“This gives us the time and flexibility to get it right, to build in safeguards, to protect people's security and to ensure any policy can withstand legal challenges,” Soto-Martinez said.

The Center Square reached out to the office of Soto-Martinez and the White House Press Office for comment on Thursday’s City Council meeting, but did not hear back by the time of publication.