Late Tuesday, one week after the June 2 jungle primaries, it was announced that Hilton (pictured above) will face Democrat Xavier Becerra, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden, in the November general election.
Hilton has pledged to dramatically reverse course in the nation's largest state, which has serious problems, including a high cost of living, housing shortages, and homelessness.
Republicans still win some local offices and congressional districts in the state, but Democrats, who maintain that President Donald Trump is a dictator and a "threat to democracy," have controlled most of California's statewide offices and the legislature since roughly the early 2010s.
Hilton has campaigned as an outsider who would change that.
Craig Huey recently told AFN, "There's no way the Republicans would be able to win if one of the Democrats was on the November ballot" because the Left harvests ballots "better than anyone."
But Kevin McGary, president of The Fredrick Douglas Foundation of California, thinks Hilton will have "a decent chance" in the runoff against Becerra, whom he calls a "commie loser."
"Because of all this malfeasance, all of the shenanigans, all of the games that have been going on over the past several months with various voting systems across the country — by November, a lot of things are going to be corrected," McGary tells AFN. "Things will be much fairer and a lot smoother."
His state, for example, is the most populous state in the country. Home to 23 million registered voters, it relies on a significant number of mail-in ballots, often from unverifiable voters whose ballots do not arrive until a week after voting ends.
The election system there recently helped far-left City Councilwoman Nithya Raman (D) overcome the comfortable 37,000-vote lead Spencer Pratt (R) held on Election Day and take the second spot on the November ballot for mayor of Los Angeles.
But the U.S. Supreme Court will soon address the short "grace period" California and other states allow for mail delays, counting late-arriving mail ballots as if they were sent on time. In Watson v. Republican National Committee, challengers argue that all ballots should be received by Election Day to count.
"The Supreme Court is going to rule on [whether states can] have a voting month; by voting day, you have to thoroughly adjudicate and confirm the winner of elections," McGary explains. "For California, Illinois, New York, and some of these other big blue states that rely on the cheat, this is going to force them to have to do things differently."
Mail-in voting is not in danger, but the Supreme Court could make timing stricter, forcing Democratic-run states that rely heavily on mailed voting to adjust how they handle and count ballots.
That ruling is expected before the end of the summer.
