The Secretary of State’s office confirmed June 17 that supporters submitted enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot. The measure is backed and financed by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which argues California needs a major new revenue source to prevent hospital, clinic and health care workforce cuts.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has repeatedly resisted statewide tax increases, has already come out against the proposal. Some of California’s wealthiest technology and business figures are also funding efforts to defeat or weaken it, warning that the tax could drive billionaires, investment and businesses out of the state.

Newsom is reportedly trying to broker a last-minute agreement that would remove the measure before the November ballot is finalized June 25.

The initiative would apply a one-time 5% tax to California residents whose net worth exceeded $1 billion as of Jan. 1, 2026. Supporters estimate about 200 people would be affected. Those subject to the tax would be allowed to pay it over five years.

Supporters say the measure could raise $100 billion. Under the proposal, the money would be placed in a special fund, with 90% dedicated to health care and 10% set aside for education and food assistance. The Legislature would decide how to spend the money and could allocate as much as $25 billion a year to eligible programs, including Medi-Cal and CalFresh.

The measure would need a simple majority vote to pass.

SEIU-UHW, the state’s largest health care workers union, has put more than $31 million into the campaign. Union leaders say California’s health care system faces a severe funding shortfall after changes to Medicaid included in the federal tax and spending package signed last year by President Donald Trump, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

The law makes broad changes to Medicaid, the public health insurance program for low-income people and people with disabilities. Experts say new work requirements, shorter eligibility periods and limits on federal Medicaid spending are expected to reduce enrollment and cut funding to states. In California, Medicaid is known as Medi-Cal and covers roughly 14 million residents.

The state Department of Health Care Services previously estimated that federal cuts could cost California $30 billion a year. At the same time, state leaders have been dealing with budget deficits and rising program costs. Last year, Newsom and lawmakers limited Medi-Cal enrollment for low-income immigrants without legal status, and additional cuts are being considered as the state adjusts to new federal rules.

Miranda Dietz, director of the Health Care Program at the UC Berkeley Labor Center, has estimated that nearly 3 million Californians could lose health coverage over the next two years because of state and federal changes.

Union officials say the proposed billionaire tax is the only plan large enough to replace the money California stands to lose.

“We are facing literally a collapse of our healthcare system here in California and elsewhere,” SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan said when the campaign was launched in October.

Union spokesperson Renée Saldaña said voters who signed petitions were receptive to the proposal, with some saying they preferred a permanent tax rather than a one-time assessment.

“This is popular. The public is feeling the strain of their own healthcare costs,” she said.

The measure has been endorsed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich. Several local unions, along with the Teamsters and AFSCME California, have also backed it.

Opponents say the initiative is risky fiscal policy that could damage California’s economy and ultimately reduce revenue if wealthy residents move elsewhere. Newsom has long argued that tax increases on high earners could push both people and companies out of California. During a recent appearance on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” he said the state has “already seen dozens and dozens of people leave.”

The opposition has attracted major financial support from some of the state’s richest residents and former residents. Google co-founder Sergey Brin, whom Forbes estimates is worth about $300 billion, reportedly moved to Nevada because of the proposed tax. Brin has contributed $82 million to Building a Better California, a committee supporting several ballot measures that could undercut the billionaire tax if it passes. The committee itself has not taken a formal position on the tax measure.

Two of those countermeasures are also expected to appear on the November ballot. The Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act would prohibit new state taxes on personal property, which could effectively invalidate the billionaire tax if both measures are approved. Another proposal, the Improving Transparency, Effectiveness and Efficiency in California Government Act, would require audits of state programs funded by special taxes.

Other wealthy business leaders, including former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt, Kleiner Perkins Chairman John Doerr and The Wonderful Company President Stewart Resnick, have donated millions to Brin’s committee. Ripple Labs co-founder Chris Larsen has launched another political action committee, Golden State Promise, to directly oppose the tax. Venture capitalist Ron Conway is funding a separate group called Stop The Squeeze.

Together, opposition committees had raised $107.9 million as of June 15, according to state campaign finance records.

Robert Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, said opponents are especially concerned about language they believe would allow lawmakers to modify the tax after voters approve it. He said the Legislature could alter the tax rate, change how often it is collected or lower the wealth threshold for who must pay. The union disputes that interpretation.

The proposal has also drawn opposition from groups that might typically align with labor-backed health care funding efforts. Planned Parenthood and the California Teachers Association have opposed the measure, as have major health care organizations including the California Medical Association, the California Primary Care Association and the California Hospital Association.

Even if voters approve the initiative, it is expected to face court challenges. Legal questions could delay the state’s ability to collect or spend the money for years. Critics point to the measure’s retroactive design because it would apply to people who were California residents on Jan. 1, 2026, including those who later moved away. Supporters argue the proposal is legally sound.

Mark Peterson, a public policy professor at UCLA School of Law, said the revenue could significantly help California offset federal health care losses, but only if the measure survives lawsuits and efforts by billionaires to relocate or shield assets.

The debate is already being shaped by concerns over whether wealthy residents will leave. Fortune reported that six billionaires moved out of California last year before the tax could apply to them; their combined wealth could have generated an estimated $27 billion in revenue. Others, including Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, reportedly moved after Jan. 1.

Still, there is no evidence that most of California’s roughly 200 billionaires are leaving. Some wealthy Californians, including former gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer, have said they support the tax.

Early public polling shows the measure has support, but not by a wide margin. A UC Berkeley Citrin Center for Public Opinion Research-POLITICO poll found 50% of voters favor the initiative. At the same time, 54% said they were concerned wealthy residents would leave California, and 63% were concerned they would take businesses with them. A March UC Berkeley Institute of Government Studies-Los Angeles Times poll found 52% support.

Ballot measure campaigns generally prefer to begin with stronger early support because backing often declines as election day nears and opposition advertising increases.

For voters across Southern California and the Inland Empire, the measure is likely to become one of the most closely watched contests on the November ballot, pitting concerns over health care access and Medi-Cal funding against fears that another tax on high earners could weaken California’s economy.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Billionaire Tax Measure Qualifies for November Ballot: What Voters Should Know appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Under California’s primary system, the two candidates with the most votes in each contest advance to the November general election, when voters will make the final decision.

Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, is headed to the general election, where he will face Republican Michael Gates in the race to become California’s top criminal justice official. Gates is a former trial attorney who previously served as Huntington Beach city attorney and as an assistant U.S. attorney. Bonta, along with his predecessor Xavier Becerra, has used the attorney general’s office to file numerous lawsuits against the Trump administration.

In the race for state superintendent of public instruction, several veteran Democratic lawmakers sought the job, including Anthony Rendon, Josh Newman and Al Muratsuchi. But two of California’s most influential education groups — the California Teachers Association and the California Charter Schools Association — bypassed the longtime legislators and endorsed Democrat Richard Barrera, president of the San Diego Unified School District. Sonja Shaw, the former president of the Chino Valley Unified School Board, was backed by both Republican candidates for governor.

As of 9:30 p.m. Tuesday, with 46% of ballots counted, Shaw was leading the superintendent race with 24.7% of the vote. Barrera was second with 19.7%.

The lieutenant governor’s office, while largely ceremonial, carries several responsibilities, including stepping in when the governor is absent, serving on state boards and commissions, and casting a tie-breaking vote in the state Senate. The leading Democratic fundraisers in the race were Josh Fryday, a member of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s cabinet; state Treasurer Fiona Ma; and former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs.

With 46% of ballots counted as of 9:30 p.m. Tuesday, Ma was ahead with 20.6% of the vote. Romero followed with 19.6%, while Fryday had 14.3%.

State Controller Malia M. Cohen, a Democrat and the current officeholder, will move on to the November election as she seeks another term as California’s chief fiscal officer. She will face Republican Herb W. Morgan, who campaigned on a pledge to expose government fraud. Meghann Adams, a San Francisco school bus driver from the Tenderloin, also ran for the office on a progressive platform as a Peace and Freedom Party candidate.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat who serves as California’s chief elections officer, will also advance to the general election. Her opponent will be Republican Donald P. Wagner, an Orange County supervisor. Wagner supports requiring voter identification and criticized Weber over the pace of vote counting. Weber was appointed by Newsom in 2021 after serving eight years in the Assembly, then won a full four-year term in 2022. She has overseen California’s universal vote-by-mail system and has said she wants to further expand voting access.

The race for state treasurer drew major fundraising from Democratic candidates, who far outpaced Republicans. The treasurer manages and invests unspent taxpayer money and oversees state borrowing and debt. Anna Caballero, who recently chaired the powerful state Senate Appropriations Committee, and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from major donors, including labor unions, tribes and businesses. Kounalakis initially ran for governor but left that race in late 2025.

With 47% of ballots counted as of 9:30 p.m. Tuesday, Kounalakis led the treasurer’s race with 36.3% of the vote. Republican Jennifer Hawks, a retired business owner, was second with 26.6%.

California voters are also weighing in on who should regulate the state’s insurance industry, a closely watched office as insurers pull back from the market amid growing wildfire risk. Candidates for insurance commissioner include Democratic state lawmakers Ben Allen and Steven Bradford, as well as Democrat Patrick Wolff, a financial analyst whose campaign has been largely self-funded. The Republican Party endorsed insurance agent Stacy A. Korsgaden.

With 47% of ballots counted as of 9:30 p.m. Tuesday, former San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim led the insurance commissioner’s race with 24.1% of the vote. Allen followed with 20.3%, and Korsgaden had 17.5%.

Four seats are also up this year on the State Board of Equalization, the five-member panel that is the only elected tax board in the country. The board advises county assessors, sets taxable values for utility and railroad properties, and hears some taxpayer appeals. The seats on the ballot include District 1, covering much of inland California; District 2, representing coastal California north of Los Angeles; District 3, covering the Los Angeles area; and District 4, covering the San Diego area.

In District 1, with 45% of ballots counted by 9:30 p.m. Tuesday, Republican state Sen. Shannon Grove led with 36.1% of the vote. Democrat Nelson Esparza was second with 30.5%.

In District 2, incumbent Democrat Sally J. Lieber was ahead with 53.7% of the vote, with 45% of ballots counted. Democrat John Pimentel was second with 14.5%.

In District 3, with 53% of ballots counted, Democratic Assemblymember Mike Gipson led with 27% of the vote. Democrat Yvonne Yiu was second with 13.9%.

In District 4, with 49% of ballots counted, Republican Denis Bilodeau led with 47% of the vote. Democratic state Sen. Tom Umberg was second with 20.8%.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Election Results: Who’s Leading in State Races So Far appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday appealed a ruling by Maine’s secretary of state barring him from the state’s 2024 ballot over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, contending she had no authority, that he incited no riot, never swore to “support” the Constitution and was not a government officer as stipulated in the constitutional amendment she cited.

Trump, whose front-running Republican candidacy could be threatened, appealed the Maine decision by Democrat Shenna Bellows, who became the first secretary of state in history to bar someone from running for the presidency under the rarely used Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That provision prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

The former president is expected to soon appeal a similar ban by the Colorado Supreme Court. That appeal would go to the U.S. Supreme Court, while Bellows’ action is being appealed to a Maine Superior Court.

Trump’s appeal on Tuesday asks that Bellows be required to place him on the March 5 primary ballot. The appeal argues that she abused her discretion and relied on “untrustworthy evidence.”

“The secretary should have recused herself due to her bias against President Trump, as demonstrated by a documented history of prior statements prejudging the issue presented,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.

Bellows reiterated to The Associated Press on Tuesday that her ruling was on pause pending the outcome of the appeal, which had been expected.

“This is part of the process. I have confidence in my decision and confidence in the rule of law. This is Maine’s process and it’s really important that first and foremost every single one of us who serves in government uphold the Constitution and the laws of the state,” she said.

Trump is expected to appeal a similar ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never issued a decision on Section 3. The Colorado court’s 4-3 ruling that it applied to Trump was the first time in history the provision was used to bar a presidential contender from the ballot.

The Colorado Republican Party has already appealed that state’s ruling to the nation’s highest court.

Trump’s critics have filed dozens of lawsuits seeking to disqualify him in multiple states.

None succeeded until a slim majority of Colorado’s seven justices — all of whom were appointed by Democratic governors — ruled against Trump. Critics warned that it was an overreach and that the court could not simply declare that the Jan. 6 attack was an “insurrection” without a more established judicial process.

A week after Colorado’s ruling, Bellows issued her own. Critics warned it was even more perilous because it could pave the way for partisan election officials to simply disqualify candidates they oppose. Bellows, a former head of Maine’s branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, has previously criticized Trump and his behavior on Jan. 6.

The Constitution’s Section 3 has been barely used since the years after the Civil War, when it kept defeated Confederates from returning to their former government positions. The two-sentence clause says that anyone who swore an oath to “support” the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection cannot hold office unless a two-thirds vote of Congress allows it.

Trump’s lawyers argue the provision isn’t intended to apply to the president, contending that the oath for the top office in the land isn’t to “support” the Constitution but instead to “preserve, protect and defend” it. They also argue that the presidency isn’t explicitly mentioned in the amendment, only any “officer of the United States” — a legal term they contend doesn’t apply to the president.

Trump made the opposite argument defending against his prosecution for falsifying business records by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, contending the case should move to federal court because the president is “an officer of the United States.” The prosecutors argued that language only applies to presidential appointees — Trump’s position in Maine.

The contention that Section 3 doesn’t apply to the president drew a scathing response from the Colorado Supreme Court last month.

“President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oathbreakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,” the court’s majority opinion said. “Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.”

As for history, Congress granted amnesty to most former Confederates in 1872, and Section 3 fell into disuse. Legal scholars believe its only application in the 20th century was being cited by Congress in 1919 to block the seating of a socialist who opposed U.S. involvement in World War I and was elected to the House of Representatives.

But it returned to use after Jan. 6, 2021. In 2022, a judge used it to remove a rural New Mexico county commissioner from office after he was convicted of a misdemeanor for entering the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Liberal groups sued to block Republican Reps. Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene from running for reelection because of their roles on that day. Cawthorn’s case became moot when he lost his primary in 2022, and a judge ruled to keep Greene on the ballot.

Some conservatives warn that, if Trump is removed, political groups will routinely use Section 3 against opponents in unexpected ways. They have suggested it could be used to remove Vice President Kamala Harris, for example, because she raised bail money for people arrested after George Floyd’s murder at the hands of Minneapolis police in 2020.

Trump and his allies have attacked the cases against him as “anti-democratic” and sought to tie them to President Joe Biden because the Colorado case and some others are funded by liberal groups who share prominent donors with the Democratic president. But Biden’s administration has noted that the president has no role in the litigation.

Those who support using the provision against Trump counter that the Jan. 6 attack was unprecedented in American history and that there will be few cases so ripe for Section 3. If the high court lets Trump stay on the ballot, they’ve contended, it will be another example of the former president bending the legal system to excuse his extreme behavior.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Trump appeals Maine ruling barring him from ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The argument that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution bars Donald Trump from the ballot has rapidly gone from obscurity to the top of the political agenda.

In August, when I wrote about why the 14th Amendment needed to be taken seriously and how it had the potential to upend the 2024 presidential campaign, a lot of people doubted the issue would get traction. Now, it’s about to land at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Within the next couple of weeks, the justices almost certainly will announce that they’ll review Tuesday’s Colorado Supreme Court ruling barring Trump from the state’s primary ballot. But getting to the Supreme Court may prove to be the easy part.

To win the case, Trump’s opponents have to surmount some big hurdles. Perhaps the toughest stems from Congress’ failure to take action in response to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The 4-3 ruling by Colorado’s highest court held that Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 attack amounted to “engag[ing] in an insurrection.” Under the 14th Amendment, that means Trump is barred from holding any federal office, including the presidency, the Colorado court ruled.

The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War. Section 3 of the amendment, written to keep former leaders of the Confederacy out of the government, says this: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

The gist is clear: A person who has taken an oath as an “officer of the United States” and then has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” cannot “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States” unless two-thirds of Congress votes to allow it.

The details, however, are thorny. Among the unresolved questions:

• Who is an “officer of the United States”? Is the presidency covered?

• What does the text mean by “insurrection or rebellion”? Does the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol qualify?

• Who gets to rule on whether someone has engaged in an insurrection? Can that be decided without a trial?

The Colorado court ruling affects only Colorado. Logically, however, if the Constitution bans Trump from office, the ban is effective in all states. Either he’s eligible or he isn’t.

That’s why the U.S. Supreme Court almost certainly will take up the case — it’s the only body that can ensure uniformity of the law across the country. Of the nine justices on the high court, six are Republicans. But partisanship may not save Trump; the justices have already shown their willingness to rebuff him, rejecting appeals by his allies after he lost the 2020 presidential election, for example. Trump’s lawyers argue that the amendment doesn’t apply to the presidency.

The text specifically mentions senators and representatives, they note, but doesn’t mention the president. The Colorado Supreme Court rejected that argument. “Any office, civil or military” clearly includes the nation’s highest office, the judges said. Any other reading would be inconsistent with the purpose of the amendment — to prevent rebels from regaining positions of power. “President Trump asks us to hold that Section Three disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,” they wrote, emphasizing the alleged exception for the presidency. That, they said, would be “inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section Three.”

Most legal scholars who have written about the 14th Amendment take that side. The other questions have generated more disagreement. Was Jan. 6 an insurrection? The riot was a violent attack on the seat of government, and it temporarily disrupted congressional business. But it was a far cry from the Civil War, which took the lives of 2% of the entire U.S. population — the equivalent of 6 million people today. Just what did the authors of the 14th Amendment have in mind when they wrote “insurrection or rebellion”? “These are demanding terms, connoting only the most serious of uprisings against the government, such as the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War,” wrote professor Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School, one of the scholars who has argued for a narrow reading of what’s covered. “The terms of Section 3 should not be defined down to include mere riots or civil disturbances, which are common in United States history,” he said.

Other scholars take the opposite view. If Jan. 6 was an insurrection, did Trump engage in it? That’s not purely a legal question; it’s a factual one — the sort normally resolved by a trial. The 14th Amendment doesn’t say, however, that it applies to people who are convicted of insurrection; instead, it bars those who have engaged in one.

That suggests something less than a full-dress criminal trial may suffice; but clearly some process has to exist to decide whether any particular individual is covered. In Colorado, state District Judge Sarah B. Wallace held a five-day hearing, starting Oct. 30, in which she took testimony about Jan. 6. In mid-November, she ruled that Trump had engaged in the insurrection. But was that hearing fair? Trump’s lawyers say no. So does one of the three dissenting Colorado Supreme Court justices, Carlos Samour Jr. The hearing was “stripped … of many basic protections that normally accompany a civil trial, never mind a criminal trial,” he wrote in his dissent. “I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom.”

Even if the U.S. Supreme Court feels that the process was fair, it’s highly unlikely the justices would allow a single state court judge to make a factual finding for the entire country. But allowing each of the 50 states to make its own decision seems equally undesirable, and likely to invite a cacophony of conflicting rulings.

That’s the central problem with the whole case, Samour wrote, warning about “the potential chaos wrought by an imprudent, unconstitutional, and standardless system in which each state gets to adjudicate Section 3 disqualification cases on an ad hoc basis.”

The Supreme Court makes rulings on the law, not on findings of fact, so it’s not in a position to create a fair process for deciding whether Trump — or anyone else — is an insurrectionist. Congress is the one body that could solve the problem.

It could do what a previous Congress did after the Civil War: create, by law, a procedure for deciding who has engaged in conduct covered by the 14th Amendment’s ban. That, however, is not going to happen. Ever since Jan. 6, Trump’s Republican allies have made sure that lawmakers would take no action on it beyond holding hearings.

Their support spared Trump from conviction after he was impeached over the Capitol attack. Now, there’s a good chance the Supreme Court will rule that the 14th Amendment can’t be enforced against Trump because no fair procedure exists to establish the relevant facts. If so, the congressional blockade against accountability will have scored a crucial victory.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Kicking Trump off the ballot won’t be easy. Here’s why appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

DENVER (AP) — Police said Tuesday they are investigating incidents directed at Colorado Supreme Court justices and providing extra patrols around their homes in Denver following the court’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot.

The Denver Police Department declined in an email to provide details about its investigations, citing safety and privacy considerations and because they are ongoing.

The department “is currently investigating incidents directed at Colorado Supreme Court justices and will continue working with our local, state and federal law enforcement partners to thoroughly investigate any reports of threats or harassment,” the email said.

Officers responded to the home of one justice on Thursday evening, but police said it appeared to be a “hoax report.” That case is also still being investigated police said.

The FBI said it is working with local law enforcement on the matter.

“We will vigorously pursue investigations of any threat or use of violence committed by someone who uses extremist views to justify their actions regardless of motivation,” a spokesperson for the Denver’s FBI office, Vikki Migoya, said in a statement.

In a 4-3 decision last week, Colorado’s highest court overturned a ruling from a district court judge who found that Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, but had said he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear that U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause was intended to cover the presidency.

The state’s highest court didn’t agree, siding with attorneys for six Colorado Republican and unaffiliated voters who argued that it was nonsensical to imagine that the framers of the amendment, fearful of former confederates returning to power, would bar them from low-level offices but not the highest one in the land.

The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case. Colorado officials say the issue must be settled by Jan. 5, the deadline for the state to print its presidential primary ballots.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Police investigating incidents involving Colorado justices after Trump removed from state’s ballot appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

DENVER (AP) — The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause and removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot, setting up a likely showdown in the nation’s highest court to decide whether the front-runner for the GOP nomination can remain in the race.

The decision from a court whose justices were all appointed by Democratic governors marks the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.

“A majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” the court wrote in its 4-3 decision.

Colorado’s highest court overturned a ruling from a district court judge who found that Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, but said he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear that the provision was intended to cover the presidency.

The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case.

Trump’s attorneys had promised to appeal any disqualification immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has the final say about constitutional matters.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from the state’s ballot under Constitution’s insurrection clause appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt by former President Donald Trump to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to keep him off the state ballot, ruling that his objections on free-speech grounds did not apply.

Trump’s attorneys argued that a Colorado law protecting people from being sued over exercising their free speech rights shielded him from the lawsuit, but Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace said that law doesn’t apply in this case.

The law also conflicted with a state requirement to get the question about Trump’s eligibility resolved quickly — before a Jan. 5 deadline for presidential candidates’ names to certified for the Colorado primary, Wallace wrote.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington claims in its lawsuit that putting Trump on the ballot in Colorado would violate a provision of the 14th Amendment that bars people who have “engaged in insurrection” against the Constitution from holding office.

The group’s chief counsel, Donald K. Sherman, welcomed Wallace’s decision, which was made late Wednesday. He called it a “well-reasoned and very detailed order” in a statement Thursday. A Denver-based attorney for Trump, Geoffrey Blue, didn’t immediately return a phone message Thursday seeking comment.

The Colorado case is one of several involving Trump that stand to test the Civil War-era constitutional amendment, which has never been ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court. Along with lawsuits filed in Minnesota and Michigan, it has a good chance of reaching the nation’s high court.

The lawsuits also involve one of Trump’s arguments in criminal cases filed against him in Washington, D.C., and Georgia for his attempt to overturn his 2020 loss — that he is being penalized for engaging in free speech to disagree with the validity of the vote tally.

The Colorado case will focus in part on the meaning of “insurrection” under the 14th Amendment, whether it applies only to waging war on the U.S. or can apply to Trump’s goading of a mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to halt the certification of President Joe Biden’s win.

Trump’s attorneys dispute that it applies to his attempt to undo the election results. They also assert that the 14th Amendment requires an act of Congress to be enforced and that it doesn’t apply to Trump, anyway.

Trump swore a presidential oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, but the text of the 14th Amendment says it applies to those who have sworn oaths to “support” the Constitution, Blue pointed out the sematic difference in an Oct. 6 filing in the case.

Both oaths “put a weighty burden on the oath-taker,” but those who wrote the amendment were aware of the difference, Blue argued.

“The framers of the 14th Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President,” he wrote.

The trial to determine Trump’s eligibility for the Colorado ballot is scheduled to start Oct. 30.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Colorado judge strikes down Trump’s attempt to toss a lawsuit seeking to bar him from the ballot appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Every registered California voter will get a ballot mailed to them in future elections under a bill signed Monday by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The law makes permanent a change adopted during the pandemic for the 2020 election and the recent recall against Newsom. California, the nation’s most populous state, joins several other Western states in mailing all voters a ballot, including Utah, Colorado, Washington and Oregon. Republicans who hold a minority in the state Legislature opposed the expansion of voting by mail.

Under the new law, ballots in California must go out at least 29 days before the election. Voters still have the option to drop off their ballot or vote in person. Prior to the pandemic, many Californians were already voting by mail.

“Voters like having options for returning their ballot whether by mail, at a secure drop box, a voting center or at a traditional polling station. And the more people who participate in elections, the stronger our democracy and the more we have assurance that elections reflect the will of the people of California,” California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat, said in a statement.

Newsom signed 10 other voting-related bills on Monday, crafting them as part of an effort to expand voting rights and access. Voting rights have become a major political flashpoint nationally. Democrat-led states are pushing legislation aimed at expanding voting access while many Republican-led states are trying to tighten it amid baseless accusations of widespread voter fraud by former President Donald Trump and other GOP leaders.

“As states across our country continue to enact undemocratic voter suppression laws, California is increasing voter access, expanding voting options and bolstering elections integrity and transparency,” Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement.

Mail-in voting put California Republicans in a tricky spot during the recent recall election against Newsom, which he handily defeated. Many Republicans didn’t trust the process, leaving party leaders to both encourage their voters to cast ballots while promising they were closely monitoring claims of fraud. There has been no evidence of widespread fraud in the recall.

California Republican Party Chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson didn’t state a clear position on the bill.

“The California Republican Party is committed to ensuring elections are safe, fair and secure, giving voters the confidence they need to cast a ballot,” she said in a statement.

Another proposal Newsom signed relaxes the rules around ballot signatures, giving officials more leeway to accept ballots if the signature doesn’t exactly match what’s on file. The legislation by Democratic Sen. Josh Becker bars election officials from taking a voter’s party preference into account when evaluating their signature. Republicans in the state Legislature also opposed the bill.

In order to reject a signature, two other election officials must also determine if the signature differs in obvious ways from the signature in the person’s registration record.

Other bills Newsom signed:

-Increase penalties for improper use of campaign funds.

-Ban political contributions from foreign governments or foreigners in state elections. Federal law already prohibits this, but the law gives the state’s campaign regulatory body the ability to enforce it.

-Changes a new law requiring candidates for governor to submit copies of their tax returns, giving candidates more time to provide documents and fix errors. That bill also expands the distance at which campaign activities are blocked outside of polling places.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California to mail every voter a ballot in future elections appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.