Replies

California cannot override the Constitutional requirements for voting for the President.

I have seen this idea many times and hope it is right. But, states aren’t even required by the Constitution to hold Presidential elections. None of the slave states had Lincoln’s name on the ballot in 1860 (Democrats again). And states do limit ballot access for Presidential candidates, eg. a candidate or party has to get so many votes to qualify for the ballot, etc. etc.

So the Republican Party/President Trump brings a lawsuit to void the California law requiring the release of tax returns. Where does the lawsuit take place? Why, it’s our old friend, the 9th Circuit. I know that President Trump has made changes in it, but there are still Judges who’d love to see him slapped down by not being on California’s ballot.

On the other hand, Trump’s not being on California’s ballot may bring some positives. He’s not likely to win CA anyway and he can point out the injustice of not being on the ballot in the largest US state. (Although Cal Republicans have not been able to vote for a Republican for US Senate in the last 4 years). And it will put to bed the “popular vote” for President nonsense.

...states aren’t even required by the Constitution to hold Presidential elections.

This is a true statement, amended to remind that states choose Electors to the Electoral College, not hold elections for President.

The California legislature could pass a law stating that all Electors are appointed by the Governor. Gavin Newsome could then appoint 55 Democrats, and it would be constitutional without anybody being on the ballot.

-PJ