By John Q. Hosedrinker 
California State Senator Tom Umberg has introduced Senate Bill 46, which would grant the California Secretary of State the authority to verify a candidate’s eligibility and remove them from the 2028 ballot if constitutionally ineligible. This bill is a direct response to discussions surrounding a potential third term for former President Donald Trump. Trump has expressed interest in remaining in power, even acknowledging the constitutional limitations preventing him from running again. The bill’s intent is to prevent any candidate who is constitutionally barred from holding office from appearing on the state’s ballot.
Read the original article here
Proposed California legislation aims to ensure President Trump is excluded from the 2028 ballot. This is where we’re at, huh? The idea seems to be simple enough: prevent a candidate from appearing on the ballot if they’re constitutionally ineligible to hold office. You know, follow the rules. Sounds like a good idea in theory.
The core of the issue stems from the argument that the Constitution already addresses this. Some believe Trump became ineligible after the events of January 6th, 2021, essentially committing insurrection. The Constitution, they say, already bars individuals from holding office if they’ve engaged in insurrection or rebellion. So, the question is, why is this even necessary?
The sentiment is that the Supreme Court, in the past, has been slow to act or has made rulings that seem to ignore the Constitution. It’s a frustrating feeling, like the rules aren’t being enforced. Concerns are voiced about the legal hurdles one must overcome to challenge such a situation. It takes money, time, and a whole lot of luck to navigate the court system, even when constitutional rights are allegedly being violated.
Some people are also of the opinion that the Constitution is, in practice, toothless. There’s a feeling of powerlessness when it comes to defending your rights. It’s easy to feel like you’re yelling into the void when trying to get justice.
Of course, the debate also brings up the subject of Trump’s health and fitness for office. It’s a consideration, but the primary focus is on the constitutional argument for exclusion. Some people find the thought of Trump in 2028 depressing. It’s an election cycle, and there’s a sense of exhaustion with the whole situation.
Interestingly, this legislation might be perceived as irrelevant because California is a reliably Democratic state. Many believe Trump has no chance of winning there anyway. This brings up an important point: does it even matter if he’s on the ballot in California? The state’s electoral votes would likely go to a Democrat regardless. However, the legislation could potentially serve to prevent Trump from gaining popularity, so it might affect the popular vote.
There’s also a sense that this legislation is a distraction. Some view it as a symbolic gesture that doesn’t actually solve the underlying problem, which is the perceived disregard for the Constitution. The fear is that if this legislation fails, it could inadvertently legitimize Trump’s candidacy in some people’s eyes, even though it’s already considered illegal under the Constitution.
The question of whether a state can legally refuse to put a candidate on the ballot is also brought up. What happens if a state does something it isn’t supposed to do? Are there any consequences? The argument is that this legislation might be a waste of resources if the Constitution already covers the issue.
The idea of “write-in” votes comes up, too. If Trump is constitutionally ineligible, some voters might write his name in anyway, throwing away their votes. The legislation might not stop this, as it is unlikely to change the outcome.
The focus is not on the outcome but on the principle that the law should be followed. It’s a way of saying “no, you can’t.” There is a clear feeling of exasperation regarding the situation.
Ultimately, the California legislation highlights a deep distrust of the political system and the courts. It’s a response to a complex situation, with people feeling like they are fighting an uphill battle. It’s a way for a state to make a statement, even if its practical impact is limited.