California Election Nightmare - Gavin Newsom Is DONE After What Investigators Just Found
California Election Nightmare - Gavin Newsom Is DONE After What Investigators Just Found
Posted July 27, 2026THE CRISIS OF UNCOUNTED VOTES: NEARLY 150,000 CALIFORNIA MAIL BALLOTS REJECTED IN PRIMARY AMID U.S. POSTAL SERVICE SCRUTINY
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — July 2026 — In an electoral system designed with some of the most expansive accessibility frameworks in the nation, a staggering and alarming administrative breakdown has captured the attention of voting rights experts, state legislators, and federal investigators alike. Election officials across California are urgently examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were decisively rejected and left uncounted during the state’s high-stakes June primary election.
The sharp spike in discarded ballots comes despite years of aggressive legislative reforms, multi-million-dollar voter education campaigns, and structural adaptations enacted specifically to streamline participation and ensure that every eligible voice is captured. Instead, the numbers reveal a troubling vulnerability in the state's sprawling vote-by-mail apparatus—one where thousands of citizens are systematically disenfranchised not by choice, but by logistical bottlenecks, shifting postal protocols, and last-minute voter behavior.
According to comprehensive data compiled and released by the California Secretary of State’s office, exactly 148,241 mail-in ballots were thrown out during the June primary. This translates to a statewide rejection rate of 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
To contextualize the scale of this failure, the figures represent a significant and worrying jump from previous election cycles. During the 2024 primary, 108,982 mail ballots were rejected—yielding a 1.56% rejection rate. In the 2022 primary, roughly 105,818 ballots were voided. While California routinely leads the nation in total ballot volume due to its universal vote-by-mail model where every registered voter automatically receives a ballot, the raw surge to nearly 150,000 discarded votes marks the highest proportional rejection rate the state has experienced since 2014.
THE PRIMARY CULPRIT: THE SCOURGE OF LATE-ARRIVING BALLOTS
When breaking down the data by category, a single, dominant factor emerges as the primary driver of the mass disenfranchisement: ballots arriving too late to legally qualify under California statute.
State data indicates that an astounding 93,479 ballots were rejected solely because they failed to meet the strict deadline requirements enforced by election code. Under California law, mail-in ballots are granted a generous statutory grace period, permitted to arrive at county election offices up to seven days after Election Day, provided they carry a valid postmark dated on or before Election Day.
Yet, even with this week-long buffer, tens of thousands of ballots crossed county thresholds too late or carried invalid postmarks. Voting and postal experts point out that the core issue is rarely the physical transit time of the mail piece reaching the registrar’s office; rather, it is the date stamped on the envelope by the postal carrier or sorting facility. Many voters drop their completed packets into residential mailboxes or blue collection boxes on Election Day, assuming that the postmark will reflect that date. Increasingly, however, regional mail processing realities dictate otherwise.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, emphasized the structural nature of this recurring flaw.
"Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count."
Alexander and other election administrators note that the problem was severely exacerbated during the June primary by a highly competitive, wide-open, and contentious race for governor. Attracted by a crowded field and intense political ad campaigns, a massive wave of late-deciding voters held onto their ballots until the final 48 hours before the deadline, flooding the postal stream in a chaotic surge that local infrastructure struggled to absorb.
THE POSTAL CONUNDRUM: CONSOLIDATION AND POSTMARK SHIFTS
The alarming volume of late-postmarked ballots has thrust the United States Postal Service (USPS) back into the center of a national political firestorm. Election experts and county registrars have spent weeks questioning whether recent operational changes, facility consolidations, and updated processing guidelines within the federal postal network are actively subverting ballot integrity.
Earlier this year, a coalition of mostly Democratic U.S. senators formally wrote to postal leadership, expressing deep-seated alarm that ongoing mail-processing modifications could severely disrupt ballot handling during crucial federal election cycles. Under updated USPS operational guidelines, automated postmarks applied at regional distribution centers may not reflect the actual calendar day the mail piece was deposited by a citizen into a local box. Instead, the postmark frequently records the date the item was physically processed inside a regional hub.
Because the Postal Service has aggressively consolidated regional processing facilities over recent years—forcing mail to travel significantly greater distances from rural and suburban communities to reach a centralized hub—the window for securing a timely postmark has narrowed drastically. A ballot dropped into a neighborhood collection box on Election Day in an outlying agricultural community may sit uncollected overnight, travel miles to a regional plant, and receive a postmark the following day, instantly rendering the vote legally void.
Mindy Romero, director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy, stressed that the unprecedented spike demands immediate, transparent investigation.
"The growing number of those set aside for lateness compared to recent elections does really demand the question why this is happening."
Despite repeated warnings issued by California election officials prior to June urging voters to mail their packets well in advance, human behavior combined with systemic mail delays created a recipe for widespread disenfranchisement. The impact was felt unevenly across the state’s 58 counties, highlighting stark geographic disparities in postal reliability.
According to state metrics, the highest mail ballot rejection rate in the June primary occurred in Tulare County, located in the agriculture-heavy Central Valley, where a staggering 3.52% of all returned mail ballots were thrown out. Alpine County, nestled south of Lake Tahoe, and Merced County, also situated in the Central Valley, followed close behind, each recording an identical, troubling rejection rate of 3.36%. Santa Clara County led the Bay Area in rejection density, with registrar officials noting an intense late-surge phenomenon.
SIGNATURE FLAWS, MISSING DATA, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ERRORS
While late postmarks accounted for the lion's share of the uncounted votes (93,479 ballots), thousands of other Californians lost their franchise due to a variety of mechanical and administrative errors during the voting process.
State records outline several other primary categories of rejection:
-
Mismatched Signatures: Nearly 44,000 ballots were initially set aside and ultimately voided because election workers determined that the signature scrawled across the return envelope did not match the signature on file in the voter’s historical registration record. While California law permits a multi-week "curing" process where registrars contact voters to fix signature discrepancies, thousands fail to respond or clear the verification hurdle in time.
-
Unsigned Envelopes: Over 8,300 ballots were outright rejected because the voter completely neglected to sign the return envelope, rendering the submission legally anonymous and invalid.
-
Duplicate Submissions: In 743 recorded instances, state systems caught voters who had already cast another ballot—either by voting early in person or submitting multiple mail packets—resulting in the invalidation of the secondary return.
-
Envelope Anomalies: Hundreds of additional ballots were voided due to physical assembly errors, such as a ballot missing entirely from the return envelope, or multiple distinct voters stuffing their separate ballots into a single shared envelope.
Crucially, state data indicates that these uncounted ballots spanned all demographics and were not broken down by party registration in initial releases, though the sheer volume affects urban and rural counties alike.
THE BROADER POLITICAL FIRESTORM: SLOW COUNTS AND FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS
The release of these rejection figures has instantly reignited fierce partisan debates over the mechanics of California’s electoral administration. For years, California has faced relentless national criticism for its notoriously slow, ponderous vote-counting process, which frequently drags on for weeks following an election as county clerks manually process provisional ballots, cure signatures, and wait out the seven-day postal grace period.
In the wake of the June primary, President Donald Trump seized upon the state’s administrative delays to renew his sharp, long-standing criticisms of California’s election management systems. Pointing to the delayed outcomes and the massive pile of discarded mail votes, federal watchdogs have amplified their scrutiny. Simultaneously, the U.S. Department of Justice launched an active, high-profile federal investigation into the administration of elections within Los Angeles County, placing local registrars under an intense legal microscope.
Despite the political weaponization of the numbers, election security experts are unified in cautioning the public against conflating administrative rejections with electoral malfeasance. Leading nonpartisan research organizations emphasize that the high volume of rejected ballots is a symptom of bureaucratic friction and postal lag, not evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A comprehensive 2025 empirical report published by the Brookings Institution underscored that documented cases of mail ballot fraud remain statistically infinitesimal, estimating roughly four confirmed fraudulent cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast nationwide. State election officials have confirmed they have uncovered zero evidence of systemic fraud tied to the June primary. Instead, the data reflects the rigid, uncompromising parameters required to maintain chain-of-custody security in a system processing tens of millions of pieces of mail.
LOOKING AHEAD: REFORM PROPOSALS AND THE PATH TO NOVEMBER
As state administrators evaluate the fallout from the June primary, pressure is mounting on the governor’s office and the state legislature to implement structural safeguards ahead of future major electoral showdowns.
Governor Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers are currently weighing proposals to inject additional funding—including a proposed $10 million infusion earmarked specifically for targeted voter education. The initiative aims to actively train the electorate to mail their ballots weeks in advance rather than waiting for election week, thereby bypassing the bottleneck of postal processing delays.
Furthermore, voting rights advocates are lobbying for enhanced digital tracking alerts that would notify voters instantly via text message if their signature is flagged or mismatched, giving them a wider window to cure the error before certification deadlines lock them out.
For the nearly 150,000 Californians whose voices went unheard in June, structural reforms will come too late. But as the state stares down upcoming legislative battles and national scrutiny, the burning question remains whether California can bridge the chasm between universal accessibility and administrative perfection before the next wave of ballots hits the mail.
Report this article
Select a reason for reporting:
Inaccurate information Copyright violation Spam / advertisement Offensive content Other '; footer.hidden = true; overlay.hidden = false; document.body.style.overflow = 'hidden'; } function hideSection() { if (section) section.hidden = true; } function openModal() { if (alreadyReported) { showSuccess(); return; } overlay.hidden = false; document.body.style.overflow = 'hidden'; } function closeModal() { overlay.hidden = true; document.body.style.overflow = ''; footer.hidden = false; overlay.querySelectorAll('input[name="report_reason"]').forEach(function(r) { r.checked = false; }); document.getElementById('reportMessage').value = ''; errorBox.hidden = true; submitBtn.disabled = false; submitBtn.textContent = 'Submit report'; imageItems = []; imgGrid.innerHTML = ''; updateAttachBtn(); } btn.addEventListener('click', openModal); closeBtn.addEventListener('click', closeModal); cancelBtn.addEventListener('click', closeModal); overlay.addEventListener('click', function(e) { if (e.target === overlay) closeModal(); }); document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) { if (!overlay.hidden && e.key === 'Escape') closeModal(); }); // --- Error helper --- function showError(msg) { errorBox.textContent = msg; errorBox.hidden = false; } // --- Submit --- submitBtn.addEventListener('click', function() { var selected = overlay.querySelector('input[name="report_reason"]:checked'); if (!selected) { showError('Please select a reason.'); return; } errorBox.hidden = true; submitBtn.disabled = true; var itemsToUpload = imageItems.filter(function(it) { return !it.uploadedUrl; }); if (itemsToUpload.length === 0) { doSubmit(selected.value); return; } submitBtn.textContent = 'Uploading…'; var done = 0, failed = 0; itemsToUpload.forEach(function(entry) { entry.statusEl.textContent = '…'; entry.statusEl.className = 'report-img-item__status'; entry.statusEl.hidden = false; resizeImage(entry.file, MAX_LONG_PX, function(resized) { uploadFile(resized, currentSlug, function(err, url) { done++; if (err) { failed++; entry.statusEl.textContent = 'Failed'; entry.statusEl.className = 'report-img-item__status err'; } else { entry.uploadedUrl = url; entry.statusEl.textContent = '✓'; entry.statusEl.className = 'report-img-item__status done'; } if (done === itemsToUpload.length) { if (failed > 0) { showError('Could not upload ' + failed + ' image(s). Remove the failed ones (red) or submit without them.' ); submitBtn.disabled = false; submitBtn.textContent = 'Submit report'; } else { doSubmit(selected.value); } } }); }); }); }); function doSubmit(reason) { submitBtn.textContent = 'Sending…'; var uploadedUrls = imageItems .map(function(it) { return it.uploadedUrl; }) .filter(Boolean); var payload = { reason: reason, message: document.getElementById('reportMessage').value.trim(), post_slug: currentSlug, post_url: window.location.href }; if (uploadedUrls.length) payload.image_urls = uploadedUrls; fetch('/api/post-report', { method: 'POST', headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json', 'X-Requested-With': 'XMLHttpRequest' }, body: JSON.stringify(payload) }) .then(function(r) { return r.json(); }) .then(function(data) { if (data && data.ok) { markReported(currentSlug); alreadyReported = true; bodyEl.innerHTML = '✓ Thank you for your report.'; footer.hidden = true; setTimeout(function() { closeModal(); footer.hidden = false; hideSection(); }, 2000); } else { showError((data && data.message) ? data.message : 'Something went wrong. Please try again.'); submitBtn.disabled = false; submitBtn.textContent = 'Submit report'; } }) .catch(function() { showError('Connection failed. Please try again.'); submitBtn.disabled = false; submitBtn.textContent = 'Submit report'; }); } })();Comments 0
Posting as Guest🚨 MAMDANI BOOED OFF STAGE: PRO-POLICE CROWD ERUPTS AS NYC MAYOR FACES HOSTILE RECEPTION
🚨 MAMDANI BOOED OFF STAGE: PRO-POLICE CROWD ERUPTS AS NYC MAYOR FACES HOSTILE RECEPTION
NEW YORK CITY — A highly charged political scene unfolded on Staten Island this week when New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani appeared at one of the NYPD’s major community events — only to be met by loud boos, jeers and chants calling for him to leave.
The event was the 43rd annual NYPD Patrol Borough Staten Island National Night Out Against Crime, held at Midland Beach on Tuesday. Reports said roughly 3,500 residents and families attended the gathering, which is designed to strengthen relationships between police officers and the communities they serve. (India Today)
Mamdani’s appearance lasted less than a minute before the crowd’s reaction overwhelmed his remarks.
Video from the event showed the mayor attempting to address the audience as boos and chants grew louder. Some attendees reportedly shouted variations of “get out of here” and “nobody wants you.”
Mamdani eventually thanked the crowd, placed a hand over his heart, waved and left the stage.
The scene quickly went viral.
And it immediately raised a larger question:
Was this simply a hostile reaction from one crowd — or a warning sign for the new mayor as he tries to build a relationship with New York’s police and outer-borough voters?
THE MOMENT EVERYTHING CHANGED
Mamdani arrived at a gathering explicitly centered on public safety and police-community relations.
The event was not a routine campaign rally.
It was not a partisan convention.
It was a community event connected to the NYPD.
That made the reaction especially striking.
According to multiple reports, the mayor had barely begun speaking when sections of the crowd erupted in boos. The audience's reaction quickly became louder, making it difficult for Mamdani to continue. (Fox News)
Instead of attempting a long speech, Mamdani kept his remarks extremely short.
He greeted the community, acknowledged the event and then left.
The entire appearance reportedly lasted less than a minute.
For a mayor who governs more than eight million people, that is an extraordinary public moment.
The symbolism was impossible to miss.
A mayor had walked onto a stage surrounded by police supporters.
Instead of applause, he received a wall of opposition.
STaten Island IS DIFFERENT
The location mattered.
Staten Island has long been politically different from many other parts of New York City.
And according to election coverage, it was the only borough that did not support Mamdani in his mayoral campaign.
That makes the event particularly significant.
Mamdani did not walk into an audience that had been built specifically around his political coalition.
He walked into a community where many residents have historically been more conservative and more supportive of traditional law-enforcement policies.
That does not mean every person in the crowd opposed him.
Nor does it mean the audience represented every Staten Island voter.
But the reaction demonstrated that a significant portion of those attending was deeply unhappy with the mayor.
The confrontation therefore became a visible test of whether Mamdani can connect with voters who did not support him.
THE POLICE ISSUE HAS FOLLOWED MAMDANI FOR YEARS
The hostility did not emerge from nowhere.
Mamdani has faced years of controversy over his views on policing.
During his political rise, he made strongly critical statements about the NYPD and advocated significant changes to law enforcement policy.
Those positions became central to criticism from opponents who argued that his approach was fundamentally hostile to police officers.
His supporters have defended his record differently, arguing that he wants greater accountability and reforms rather than an absence of public safety.
But perceptions matter in politics.
And within sections of the NYPD community, skepticism toward Mamdani has been visible for some time.
That context helps explain why his appearance at a police-focused event generated such a dramatic reaction.
THE NYPD RELATIONSHIP COULD BE ONE OF MAMDANI’S BIGGEST CHALLENGES
Every New York City mayor has to manage a complicated relationship with the NYPD.
The police department is responsible for protecting millions of residents and visitors.
The mayor, meanwhile, is ultimately responsible for the city's administration and public-safety agenda.
When those two institutions disagree, the consequences can be significant.
A mayor cannot simply govern as though police concerns don't exist.
At the same time, police officers operate under policies established by elected officials.
That creates an unavoidable tension.
Mamdani entered office promising change.
The NYPD, meanwhile, has its own organizational culture, priorities and expectations.
The Staten Island event provided a rare public snapshot of that tension.
The mayor stood on stage.
Police supporters responded.
And the message from part of the audience was unmistakable.
THE CROWD WASN’T JUST POLITICAL ACTIVISTS
One of the reasons the moment received so much attention is that reports described the audience as a community gathering rather than a formally organized political protest.
Families were present.
Residents attended.
Police supporters came to participate in an event focused on neighborhood safety.
That makes it difficult to dismiss the entire reaction as simply a campaign event filled with partisan opponents.
At the same time, it would also be a mistake to assume that every person present shared the same political opinion.
The footage demonstrates the intensity of the reaction.
It does not provide a scientific poll of Staten Island residents.
That distinction is important.
The incident tells us that there was significant hostility among those in attendance.
It does not, by itself, tell us exactly how the entire borough feels about the mayor.
MAMDANI DIDN’T FIGHT BACK
Perhaps the most interesting part of the episode was Mamdani’s response.
He did not confront the audience.
He did not accuse the crowd of being extremists.
He did not attempt to shout over them.
Instead, he smiled, acknowledged the audience and left.
Politically, that response can be interpreted in several ways.
Critics may see it as evidence that he was overwhelmed.
Supporters may see it as restraint.
Either way, it prevented the confrontation from escalating further.
A mayor entering a hostile crowd could easily turn a political disagreement into a much more serious security issue.
Mamdani's decision to leave quickly may therefore have been the safest option.
BUT THE VIDEO TOLD A DIFFERENT STORY
The visual impact of the incident is one reason the story spread so quickly.
Written descriptions cannot fully capture what happened.
A short clip, however, can.
Viewers can see Mamdani approaching the microphone.
They can hear the reaction.
They can see him attempt to continue.
And they can watch him eventually leave.
That creates an emotional narrative almost instantly.
In today's media environment, those few seconds can reach millions of people before a longer news report even appears.
That is precisely what happened.
Videos of the incident circulated widely online and became a focal point for both supporters and critics. (Hindustan Times)
THE “ACTIVIST VS. MAYOR” DEBATE
The confrontation has also revived a broader debate about Mamdani's political identity.
Some critics believe he has not fully transitioned from activist to executive.
Their argument is that campaigning and governing require fundamentally different skills.
An activist can demand change.
A mayor must manage a complex institution.
An activist can focus on one issue.
A mayor has to balance dozens of competing responsibilities.
And a mayor must represent people who strongly disagree with him.
That includes neighborhoods where he performed poorly.
It includes police officers.
It includes business owners.
It includes commuters.
It includes homeowners and renters.
And it includes voters who never supported him.
That is the challenge Mamdani now faces.
MAMDANI HAS TO GOVERN THE WHOLE CITY
New York City is not politically uniform.
Manhattan is different from Staten Island.
Queens is different from Brooklyn.
The Bronx has different political priorities.
And even within each borough, neighborhoods can have sharply different views.
A mayor who governs successfully must find ways to build working relationships across those divisions.
That is particularly important on public safety.
Many New Yorkers want police reform.
Many others want more officers and tougher enforcement.
Some voters want major systemic changes.
Others fear those changes could weaken law enforcement.
Mamdani will have to navigate all of those demands.
The Staten Island reaction demonstrates just how difficult that task could become.
POLICE UNIONS HAVE BEEN WATCHING
Police unions have long expressed concern about Mamdani's approach to public safety.
Those concerns predate his election.
Union leaders have warned that the mayor's rhetoric could negatively affect officer morale and the relationship between police and City Hall.
The Staten Island event gave those concerns a dramatic visual backdrop.
Officers and police supporters were gathered for a celebration of community safety.
The mayor walked onto the stage.
The crowd erupted.
The irony was obvious.
And political opponents immediately seized on it.
For them, the video is evidence that the mayor's relationship with the police is already damaged.
Mamdani's supporters, however, could argue that one hostile crowd cannot determine his entire relationship with the department.
Both interpretations are possible.
THE BIG QUESTION: CAN MAMDANI WIN OVER THE OUTER BOROUGHS?
That may ultimately matter more than one viral video.
New York politics can be heavily influenced by outer-borough voters.
Issues such as crime, transportation, housing costs and public safety can dominate political discussions.
Mamdani has strong support among many progressive voters.
But governing requires a coalition much broader than the voters who put him in office.
The Staten Island event exposed a political weakness:
There are New Yorkers who do not trust him on public safety.
That problem will not disappear because the mayor leaves a stage.
It will require policy decisions.
PUBLIC SAFETY WILL DEFINE HIS ADMINISTRATION
The mayor's relationship with the NYPD will likely be judged not by speeches but by results.
Crime statistics.
Officer recruitment.
Response times.
Police morale.
Community relations.
Budget decisions.
And how aggressively the administration responds to public disorder.
If public safety improves, Mamdani could gradually win over skeptics.
If conditions deteriorate, critics will point back to incidents like the Staten Island confrontation.
That is how political moments become part of a larger narrative.
A 45-second speech can become symbolic.
SUPPORTERS SAY THE MAYOR DESERVED TO BE THERE
There is another way to interpret Mamdani's decision to attend.
He knew Staten Island was politically difficult.
He knew the event was likely to include many police supporters.
And he went anyway.
That could be viewed as an effort to demonstrate that he intends to represent the entire city.
Even voters who opposed him are still his constituents.
A mayor cannot simply avoid neighborhoods that voted against him.
In that sense, showing up may have been a deliberate act of governance.
The hostility does not necessarily mean the appearance was a mistake.
It could mean the opposite.
It could demonstrate that Mamdani is willing to enter politically uncomfortable environments rather than remain surrounded by supporters.
BUT POLITICAL SYMBOLISM CAN CUT BOTH WAYS
Every appearance sends a message.
Mamdani's presence said he wanted to participate in the event.
The crowd's response sent a different message.
That is why the moment became so powerful.
Neither side needed a prepared speech.
The symbolism was already there.
A mayor associated with progressive politics standing at a pro-police event.
A crowd expressing strong disapproval.
And a city watching the confrontation unfold online.
It was almost tailor-made for viral politics.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The real significance of the incident will depend on what happens afterward.
Will Mamdani meet with police union leaders?
Will he increase engagement with Staten Island residents?
Will he adjust any part of his public-safety strategy?
Will NYPD officers continue to publicly criticize him?
Or will both sides simply move forward?
A single event cannot answer those questions.
But it can expose a problem.
And the problem here is clear:
There is a significant gap between Mamdani and at least some of the communities and police supporters he now has to govern.
Closing that gap may be one of the most difficult challenges of his administration.
THE VIRAL MOMENT THAT COULD HAUNT CITY HALL
Political opponents will likely continue sharing the footage.
Supporters may respond by emphasizing that Mamdani had the courage to attend.
Critics will focus on the boos.
Supporters will focus on his composure.
Both sides will use the incident to reinforce what they already believe.
That is how political polarization works.
But outside the online debate, the mayor still has a city to govern.
The NYPD still has to police it.
And Staten Island residents still have to live with the consequences of City Hall's decisions.
The real test will therefore happen long after the cameras stop recording.
🚨 THE BOTTOM LINE
Zohran Mamdani walked onto a stage at a major NYPD community event in Staten Island and was met with loud boos and chants from members of the audience.
His appearance lasted less than a minute, according to multiple reports. (India Today)
The moment was dramatic.
It was embarrassing for the mayor from the perspective of his critics.
It was evidence of political division for others.
And it highlighted a genuine challenge facing City Hall:
Mamdani must govern a city where large numbers of voters — particularly in some outer-borough communities — do not necessarily share his views on policing and public safety.
But one viral confrontation does not establish that all Staten Islanders oppose him, nor does it prove that the mayor's relationship with the NYPD is beyond repair.
What it does show is something much more difficult for any new mayor to ignore:
The trust gap is real.
And fixing it will require much more than one speech.
It will require results.
It will require communication.
And above all, it will require convincing New Yorkers who did not vote for Zohran Mamdani that he truly intends to govern for them, too.
