Decision Desk Projects Nithya Raman to Claim Second Spot in LA Mayoral Race
“As long as I count the Votes, what are you going to do about it? Say?”
Cartoonist Thomas Nash attributed the following quote to William M. “Boss” Tweed in 1871: “As long as I count the Votes, what are you going to do about it? Say?” The most famous version of this message is more commonly associated with Joseph Stalin: “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.” Regardless, the underlying truth is as old as politics itself: those who control the machinery of elections wield enormous power.
Conservatives were delighted on Wednesday morning to see independent firebrand Spencer Pratt defying expectations in the Los Angeles mayoral race. With roughly 63% of the primary vote counted, incumbent Mayor Karen Bass led with 34.8%, while Pratt seemed well on his way to a runoff spot with 30.4%. City Councilwoman Nithya Raman lagged behind at 22.3%, looking unlikely to overcome Pratt’s sizable lead.
But as the vote counting continued, Pratt’s once-commanding 8.1-point lead steadily evaporated. By Sunday night, with 83% of the vote tallied, it had vanished entirely. Pratt, at 26.7%, now trails Raman, who stands at 27.1%, by 0.4%.
Consider what that means. The next 20% of the vote completely reversed the trend established by the first 63% — not only erasing Pratt’s 8.1-point lead, but producing an 8.5-point swing in the standings. Such a dramatic turnaround strains the limits of credibility. At a minimum, it appears highly suspicious.
Moreover, despite leading by just four-tenths of a percentage point, Raman’s advantage was enough for Decision Desk to project her as the winner of the coveted second runoff spot. If the remaining ballots follow the same pattern, Bass and Raman will move on to the general election — and Pratt’s improbable mayoral campaign will come to an abrupt end.
Decision Desk HQ projects Nithya Raman wins the second of two spots in the CA Los Angeles Mayor Nonpartisan Primary#DecisionMade: 7:57 PM EDT pic.twitter.com/PIwkJ5xxGO
— Decision Desk HQ (@DecisionDeskHQ) June 7, 2026
Needless to say, many of us find this outcome difficult to accept at face value. A result that appeared all but settled on Wednesday morning has been transformed entirely by subsequent ballot drops, producing a swing large enough to change the outcome of the race. Such a dramatic reversal is bound to invite intense scrutiny.
One voter, clearly unconvinced by the outcome, responded as follows:
It makes perfect sense that the candidate whose campaign collapsed, and who got annihilated so badly on election day that she was crying on stage, would outperform the incumbent on the late arriving mail-in ballots
Totally legitimate, nothing to see here
Democracy!
— John Ennis (@johnennis) June 8, 2026
Pratt reacted to Sunday’s election update on X, writing: “‘A net swing of more than 43,000 votes since Tuesday..’ 43,000, huh? Where have I seen that number before…?”
He highlighted a sentence in a March report on homelessness in Los Angeles that reads: “43,699 people experienced homelessness on any given night in the City of Los Angeles.”
He adds, “Probably nothing,” followed by a shrug emoji.
"A net swing of more than 43,000 votes since Tuesday.."
43,000, huh? Where have I seen that number before…?
Probably nothing. 🤷 https://t.co/W2E3k6PHyR pic.twitter.com/ZfzHCy9enb
— Spencer Pratt (@spencerpratt) June 8, 2026
In a second post, Pratt wrote, “Remember everyone…we are still in the lead, and we’ve got allllllll the way til July 6th to keep counting. They’re not the only ones who know where to find votes.” He added a winking emoji.
Remember everyone…we are still in the lead, and we’ve got allllllll the way til July 6th to keep counting. They’re not the only ones who know where to find votes 😉 pic.twitter.com/rqgIcwUtGZ
— Spencer Pratt (@spencerpratt) June 7, 2026
Perhaps anticipating the wave of criticism over California’s notoriously slow vote counting process, Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan addressed reporters last Tuesday night. He warned that they would hear from “some big voices, some loud voices that it’s crazy, that maybe it’s even stupid, that it takes this long for votes to be counted in California. I want to emphasize that it’s not stupid. It’s not crazy. It’s actually the law in California.”
Logan was telling the truth. California has some of the most permissive — if not the most permissive — vote-by-mail laws in the country. Every active registered voter is automatically mailed a ballot before each statewide election. Because the state has refused to allow the Department of Justice to review its voter rolls, there’s no way to know how many registrations belong to deceased individuals, voters who have moved, duplicate records, or were actually fraudulent registrations to begin with.
Los Angeles county celebrates the fact that it takes nearly a month to count votes for the primary.
It’s not a bug.
It’s feature for democrats https://t.co/foUasy14OQ
— Kevin Dalton (@TheKevinDalton) June 3, 2026
Additionally, California accepts ballots that arrive as late as one week after Election Day. Although the law requires those ballots to be postmarked on or before Election Day, claims circulating on social media suggest that even a handwritten date may be enough to meet that standard, raising further questions about the state’s ballot-counting process. For obvious reasons, this is impossible to confirm.
This is insane. You can even write the purported date on the ballot envelope, no postmark needed!
California is ground zero for election fraud in the United States. https://t.co/Szh16vQlDn
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) June 8, 2026
At any rate, as Logan explained, the slow process is the law in California. The bigger question is why is it the law?
Other large states, including Florida and Texas, routinely report election results on election night or by the following day. Even many developing countries manage to produce official results within 24 hours of the polls closing. So why does California consider it acceptable for the vote-counting process to drag on for days — or even weeks — after Election Day?
I’ll leave to readers to decide for themselves why that is, and whether it inspires confidence in the process.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on LinkedIn.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This is insane
Right before our eyes and in our faces
Stick a fork in it, California is done and unfortunately so goes California, so goes the USA
“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union”
Art IV, sec 3, US Constitution
Can Congress eject a State from the Union? SCOTUS says no State can leave the Union unilaterally, but it has never faced the question of whether or not a State can be ejected from the Union. There is a fundamental difference between the two acts. Disassociation from the Union by a State undoes something done by Congress, if Congress were to repeal a State’s admission, it would be undoing one of its own acts. (Although I disagree with SCOTUS’ opinion on the matter and believe that freedom of association, as exercised by territories seeking admission to join the Union, should include freedom to disassociate.)
Admission of new states is made by legislation (see Google AI’s take, below) and there is no doubt Congress can repeal legislation. However, this form of ejection may not be possible against the original Union member states, their admission having been affected by simply ratifiying the Constitution. (A de facto method of the recognition of statehood, as only prospective member states, members of the polity created under the Articles of Confederation, were allowed to ratify the Constitution.) Although I’d speculate that an original State could be ejected with its consent.
Objection: If the people of a State object to the ejection of their State from the Union, Congress can’t defy their will.
Objection answered: Congress regularly defies the wills of certain States when it passes, by majority vote, legislation opposed by those States’ representatives, just as it would when attempting to eject a State. Also, when a territory applies for statehood, Congress is not bound to admit it as a state, and, in doing so, can just as well defy the will of the people of the territory seeking admission. Both of these scenarios demonstrate that the will of the people, whether they be the people of a Union member State or of a territory, does not matter to Congress. The only thing that matters in Congress is the will of the majority of the members of its two chambers. Not every state (or territory) will necessarily be happy with Congress’ decisions, and this is not uncommon.
This is just a first defense of the idea against what I think is the most likely objection, it is not meant to be conclusive. The reader may have other objections. I’m sure you’ll let me hear them! I’m just throwing this out there to see what ideas on the subject others may have.
Google AI:
Congress admits a new state into the Union by passing an Admission Act, which must be approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and signed into law by the President.
Another old ruling, this one from 1869 in the aftermath of the Civil War, that might not survive a rehearing. Saying that a state can be admitted but can not leave makes little sense.
Now you know why Bass always has that weird joker grin on her face. She knows there is no way she can be voted out of office because the system is owned by Dems.
Good chance of a recall at the first sign of next term trouble with this kind of opposition but who counts those votes?
You can take up arms or you can complain that you can’t because you’ve got work in the morning. That’s where the nation is at.
that’s a “you first” kind of comment
This is a you first kind of article, buddy.
It’s not just that Raman gained. It’s that ONLY Raman gained.
Literally every other Democrat in the race stayed at the same relative % of votes, while Raman magically jumped 10%.
And don’t worry. The Dread Coward Roberts will be happy to rule that nobody ‘has standing’ to contest this obvious lunacy.
And I see other people calling it stupid. It’s not stupid IF IT WORKS. They don’t even have to care about being smarter, because it’s working.
What the F*** could Roberts possibly have to do with it? How could this ever end up in a federal court?
However, it’s obvious that Pratt would have standing. And that no one else would. You seem to imagine that standing is something Roberts invented, rather than a fundamental doctrine of our entire legal system and one of the only checks on the judiciary’s power. If you want to see what happens when standing is not necessary, look at Israel.
Because the Constitution guarantees to the people of every State a republican form of government. A government which allows/enables voters to be robbed of their votes by cheating isn’t “republican” in form. This guarantee should be actionable at the federal level. What venue, other than federal courts, could possibly be suitable? Arguably, the authors of the Constitution considered a denial of a republican form of government to the people of any State to be a form of harm, and they specifically obligated the federal government to address situations in which the requirement isn’t being met.
First of all, the Republican guarantee clause is not justiciable. Second, it has nothing to do with local elections. Third, a republican form of government simply means a government with an elected executive and legislature and a judiciary; it says nothing about who can vote, or how the elections are structured.
Your argument was tried after Dorr’s rebellion in the 1840s. In Luther v Borden the Supreme Court said “Leave us out of this”.
Not justiciable? SCOTUS has said that no portion of the Constitution can have no effect. If the clause isn’t justiciable, this only means either SCOTUS failed in its responsibility or some other branch of government bears responsibility for enforcing the guarantee.
Second, it has every thing to do with State and local elections. The clause obliges an unnamed branch or agency of the federal government to reach into the States to address any issue (it doesn’t exclude any issue, so it must include all such issues) that threatens the States’ republican form of government. This would include State and local elections when their maladministration threatens or harms republican principles.
This article – https://conlaw.jotwell.com/congressional-power-to-guarantee-state-democracy/ – suggests Congress is the guarantor. But because the guarantee doesn’t specifically designate a guarantor (except that we know it’s an authority within the federal government), the right to petition government generally strongly suggests that it’s up to the citizens to make a complaint to whatever branch that may have the authority to enforce the guarantee. For instance, DJT appealed to Georgia’s attorney general to address his concerns with the results of an election, while Al Gore turned to the courts. One wasn’t correct and the other wrong – they were both correct – they addressed their complaints to authorities they believed could address their specific problems. A citizen can address a complaint to any office or agency, which is not to say that any office or agency has the authority to solve the problem. But the clause makes the federal government a guarantor, so some branch, agency, or office must have jurisdiction to hear the complaint and enforce the guarantee. These authorities can only be within the Executive, Congress, and/or the federal courts. The Constitution is clear, some branch, agency, or office within the federal government has the authority to enforce the guarantee. An unenforceable guarantee is no guarantee at all and the Constitution declares there is a guarantee, therefore it must be enforceable (even if not justiciable). Or is the Constitution lying to us about the existence of the guarantee?
DaveGin, the courts have been crystal clear from the beginning of the constitution that some matters are not justiciable. And in the case brought after Dorr’s rebellion, it specifically said that the Republican Guarantee clause is not justiciable. Dorr’s people presented essentially your position to the supreme court and the court rejected it. So that is established law, and has been for about 180 years.
Also, a republican form of government obviously refers to the general outline of the major institutions, not to how they function or are administered. If a state were to get rid of its legislature and vest all power in the governor, that would not be a republican form of government. If it were to abolish elections altogether, ditto.
But for instance restricting the franchise clearly doesn’t invalidate a republican form of government, because when the constitution was adopted every state had a highly restricted franchise. Several subsequent amendments limited the grounds on which states can limit the franchise, but did not take away that power. States can still limit the franchise on any grounds not specifically prohibited by the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments. If that violated the republican guarantee clause then those amendments would have been unnecessary.
The cheat is so obvious, they aren’t even trying to hide it anymore.
Statistically- Impossible.
They are not even putting up plywood to block the view counting or mysteriously suspending counting for a water leak and resuming after the vote monitors leave.
The story you repeat about what happened in Atlanta is false. It was made up, and disproven almost immediately. Counting was never suspended for any water leak; that just didn’t happen and was simply a lie. Counting was originally going to be ended for the night, and then that decision was changed and it continued for a few more hours. The monitors were never told to leave. They were free to remain, but decided to leave of their own accord. There were also no suitcases, and no ballots were counted more than once.
California is a banana republic and has been for a long time.
yeah
Cheat ketta banana
Where I grew up, we had a saying that covers this election (and many other California elections): “if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, cheap!”
California voter law is specifically designed to not only enable fraud, but also make it impossible to challenge and thereby segregate challenge votes for later adjudication. Even if a voter is challenged by the election officials, the law states that it is to be interpreted liberally in favor of the voter AND FURTHERMORE is given a Regular ballot (as opposed to a Provisional ballot) so that once it is cast it cannot be separated form any other vote. As an election official in Ohio, I recognize this is an open invitation to fraud.
Giving a liberal interpretation of the law in favor of the voter presumes the voter actually exists and is a person qualified to vote. It isn’t necessary to show that particular votes were cast by people who don’t exist or who aren’t qualified to vote, or even to show that cheating altered the results of the election. It’s enough that cheating causes doubt in the results’ veracity, because the appearance of illegitimacy should be sufficient to nullify an election. An election must be conducted in such a manner that even the appearance of illegitimacy doesn’t manifest. And this is exactly why California’s voting and ballot counting is arranged the way it is – to make it nearly impossible to detect cheating by making it impossible to show that cheating isn’t occurring. Voting and ballot counting should be structured to make it easy to detect cheating, just the opposite of California’s elections.
Gosh if only there’s was.
1. A case before SCOTUS that could provide clarity re ‘election day’, when a ballot is/isn’t valid, what constitutes official receipt of a.ballot…oh wait there is ..Watson v RNC argued already whose opinion has yet to be released and appears to be slow walked by the expected minority dissent so as not to impact spring/early summer primaries
2. A concerted effort to figure out if States (including CA) are conducting required voter registration list maintenance and/or implementing basic election security safeguards.. Oh there is and the blue States are suing DoJ to stop this elementary inquiry.
No case before SCOTUS could possibly affect a local election.
Really? Cool, good to know that if SCOTUS decides any issue related to elections it doesn’t apply to elections for non Federal and non Statewide offices. Which would also mean no Federal Court would have any jurisdiction over ‘local’ elections. You might consider applying some caveats to your overly broad claim.
The constitution has nothing to say about local elections. Congress has no power to legislate about local elections.
Nope. No switching off from stating the Federal Judiciary (SCOTUS) has no impact on local elections to reframe the argument as Congress has ‘nothing to say about local elections’.
Even that isn’t wholly true. The VRA can and has been used as an obstacle to a locality using at large v by districts in Municipal council elections.
Past those examples of direct impact the Congress could indirectly impact elections with legislation. For example require all ballots for a Federal office to be cast and counted on ‘election day’. Presumably the locals won’t wish to hold separate elections and would adapt to the schedule set by Congress. Even if they did use different ballots the logical corollary of a pure Federal ballot is to require establishment of a pure Federal Voter Registration list for use with those ballots. Frankly that may be the best strategy to take the wind out of the sails of the blue State ‘resistance’. A separate Federal voter registration list, operated and maintained by the Feds would provide an interesting side by side contrast with the voter registration list under State control.
No, but it says the federal government is obliged to guarantee a republican form of State government to the citizens of every State. If that guarantee does not include an obligation to prevent threats to the republican form of a State’s government by the maladministration of elections then it doesn’t apply to every way in which the States’ republican forms of government may be threatened. But I see no such restriction on the face of the guarantee, strongly implying that someone in the federal government has the authority to enforce republican principles within the governments of the several States regardless of the nature of the threat.
Chief, there already are Special Federal Voters, who are entitled to vote in federal elections but it’s up to states whether to allow them to vote in state and local elections as well. So each state already must have a separate federal register, unless it chooses to let them vote for everything.
Oh? And if the SC had determined that ballots received after election day are not to be counted under any circumstance? Would that affect local elections?
No, it obviously would not. SCOTUS could only make such a determination on the basis of a federal law, which would apply only to congressional elections. (It wouldn’t even apply to presidential elections, since Congress has no authority to regulate those.)
When will people understand that Milhouse knows nothing about the law?
That his legal opining is all in service to gaining power for the left?
That it is probably fed to him by a handler?
Think this sounds far fetched? The election law in California IS vote fraud. That IS the law. To legally vote in California the Dems have written the ‘laws’ so that one must commit vote fraud to vote.
The Democrat will come around to tell us that it can’t be fraud if it’s the law, it’s legal.
Yes, that’s the point. The left has legalized something that is wrong regardless of law.
When will people understand that Azathoth is a deeply evil person who has no regard for truth whatsoever, and posts here only for the purpose of slandering me? Not one word Azathoth writes can ever be trusted. He lies as easily as he breathes (assuming he does breathe).
Why would anyone vote for loud mouth Bass after her excretable performance in office? Hell as far as I’m concerned all the votes in CA are fraudulent with the results following a script drawn up in Hollywood.
And.. ballot harvesting is perfectly legal in California. Homeless NGOs (left wing front groups) use their addresses to collect ballot for the homeless in LA. They get them filled out and then return them.
If California wants to screw it’s own people over on local elections, that’s up to the voters to fix. But when it comes to federal elections, it has an impact on the entire nation. We need to have some minimum standards for those votes to be certified. If the fed could ride herd on the southern states for decades to ensure “fair” elections, they can go after California as well.
The blue States who keep playing where’s waldo with their election/registration records may end up in a pre clearance regime given their intransigence and the tenacity of DoJ Civil Rights Div leadership.
Surely preclearance would have to be passed by Congress. I can’t imagine that DOJ can just impose it on its own.
Wouldn’t be that hard to get it passed in a new Congress…. One in which the entire Congressional delegation of CA was refused seating which Congress retains the power to do as ‘Judge of elections, returns and qualifications’. While the power to refuse seating based on qualifications was (correctly) limited many decades ago refusal based on the remaining factors were not.
DoJ tenacity may ultimately result in a consent decree that effectively creates a pre clearance regime, assuming that the litigation can be sustained beyond Trump 2.0 in a Vance or Rubio Admin.
When was this? As far as I know each house retains the right to refuse to seat a purported member if it genuinely disputes his qualifications or his election. What it can’t do is refuse to seat him for any other reason, such as that it thinks he’s not a suitable person, or it just doesn’t like him. If it doesn’t doubt that he meets all the qualifications or that he was in fact elected, then it must seat him.
They were restricted from applying ‘qualifications’ based on anything other than the minimum qualifications listed for office. Prior to that ruling (I think late 60s maybe 69?) there was at least solid argument that the Congressional power to refuse to seat over ‘qualifications’ was more expansive than the minimum qualifications for office which makes some sense b/c otherwise why list it separately if it was redundant?
Oh, that’s all you meant. No, there was never any argument for that. The constitution clearly means the qualifications that it lists, and nothing else.
Each house is the judge of whether its members meet the constitutional qualifications. So the house can refuse to seat someone because he’s only 24, or because he’s only been a US citizen for 6 years, or because on election day he wasn’t a resident of his state, or because it believes he didn’t actually win the election. But it can’t and could never refuse for any other reason. I think the first time it ever tried was with Adam Clayton Powell, and that’s when SCOTUS said no, you can’t do that.
Allegations of election fraud, “without evidence,” media parrot.
Liberals design election law and admin such that fraud is nearly impossible to prove then claim it doesn’t exist since it’s unproven. Liberals know this “reasoning” is a ruse and don’t care because holding onto power is all that matters. They know none of their own kind care either. Without power, the great grift ends.
As I often put it, if you go fishing with a six-inch net you won’t catch many five-inch fish, even if the water is full of them.
I see you voiced an opinion earlier than what I just posted above, re: the “design” of election laws.
if you wade into X… their argument is “never mind statistics, you can’t prove anything, you don’t have a shred of evidence.”
They confuse “evidence” for “proof.” “Evidence” is objective* (if it is admitted in good faith, and not itself a lie or fabrication), like numbers and stats, or fingerprints or financial records. “Proof” is subjective – it depends entirely on how the evidence is perceived or interpreted. They are not the same things.
*But can still be manipulated by controlling what evidence is admitted into consideration.
pratt should demand an independent, supervised recount
If it’s just a rumor then it’s not a useful argument, and only serves to harm the credibility of the better arguments.
Actually, it’s true. Among other things a ballot that has been mailed out can be deposited in any county in the state not just the one where the resident lives if he/she lives there.
That’s fine and reasonable. Why shouldn’t a voter be able to do that? But it does nothing to confirm the rumor that a handwritten “postmark” is accepted.
I had posed the question whether Los Angeles deserved Pratt and his common-sense policy solutions,. Commiefornia Dhimmi-crats — either with the aid of ballot fraud, or not — have answered that question.
Bass’s re-election as the utterly incompetent and destructive mayor of L.A., combined with the seemingly likely passage of the communist/Islamofascist/Muslim supremacist Dhimmi-crats’ utterly idiotic, vindictive, collective prosperity-destroying, allegedly “one-time” “wealth tax” ballot initiative, will hasten Commiefornia’s well-deserved economic, political and cultural demise, while well-managed, business-friendly and low-tax “red” states such as Idaho, Utah, Texas, Florida, Alabama, South Carolina and others, reap substantial economic and political gains.
raman
raman
1 for red
2 for black
the mail in cheat sheets are the same as the social promotions they forced the schools to give to the same low IQ types
americas decline followed post haste
This is a great self-own gift all wrapped up for the Republicans for use in the midterms.
Did I expect Pratt to take the top spot. Nope. I didn’t even think he’d take the 2nd spot but he did. It’s clear that some type of shenanigans happened for the 3rd place candidate to overtake him and even gain on the first place. The first place being relatively flat in gaining more votes was what everyone noticed.
Even people who normally don’t pay attention noticed this election because of this.
Thank you Democrats.
It’s a dress rehearsal for doing the same thing at the State and then national levels. If they can get away with it here, they will believe they can get away with it anywhere.
I posted here all along that there is zero chance any straight white male Republican gets elected mayor of LA. Very low chance he even gets on the ballot. The only question has ever been what shenanigans would be employed to keep him off the ballot.
Sadly, denial is not just the name of a river in Egypt.
Some guy on X I have never heard of before said in essence, ‘of course this was going to happen, young progressive voters always mail votes in late.’
I don’t take drugs like he does, but if I did I’d use his. The stats show where the piles of votes are coming from, and it clear this is a fraudulent election.
One truly has to wonder what the morals of the average person in LA is, that they would actually vote for the status quo as the city destroys itself and will suffer world-wide rage and embarrassment when the 2028 Olympics falls apart before our eyes. It’s time for the ‘de-Nazification’ of California, like what happened to Germany after the end of the World War in 1945.
So what’s even the point of voting in California? And there are many fools in this country who want to remove the electoral college and replace our presidential elections w/ the popular vote. Right, so we can allow this broken California system to determine every election? Soiunds awesome.
Steyer has narrowed the gap by about 80,000 in the last couple of hours. It seems likely that the steal will be complete by morning.
Leave a Comment