Judge to rule if Newsom’s party can be on ballot
SACRAMENTO — Seeking every minuscule advantage they can muster in the battle ahead, Gov. Gavin Newsom and those trying to oust him from office faced off in court Friday over a technical gaffe that could prevent Newsom from identifying as a Democrat on the recall ballot.
The judge who will decide whether Newsom can make a late addition of his party preference, after his lawyer overlooked a key filing deadline more than a year ago, gave little indication during the virtual hearing how he plans to rule.
But Judge James Arguelles of the Sacramento County Superior Court said he would issue a written decision on Monday to fulfill a request by Newsom’s team, which is barreling toward a Sept. 14 election in which voters will decide whether to remove the governor from office before the end of his term.
Candidates seeking to replace Newsom have a
week left to file to run. While those candidates can name their political party on the ballot, Newsom missed his chance to do so when it was omitted from his original answer to the recall petition in February 2020. His lawyers have said it was “an inadvertent but good faith mistake,” because the law had just changed two months prior.
After Secretary of State Shirley Weber — a Newsom appointee — rejected an updated filing last month on procedural grounds, Newsom sued to get his party added to the ballot, which will ask voters two questions: Should Newsom be recalled? And if he is, who should replace him?
Thomas Willis, an attorney for Newsom, said Friday there was no question that the governor would have wanted his party preference on the recall ballot, if not for the filing error by Willis.
He argued that Newsom should be accommodated because he had substantially complied with the law by attempting to correct the error before the Secretary of State’s office certified a list of candidates or began compiling the ballot. While rival candidates still have time to file to run, Willis said, the governor faced a much earlier deadline to submit his information.
“This deadline is completely divorced from any election date,” Willis said. “It’s a deadline that serves no administrative election purpose.”
Lawyers for the recall organizers and Republican candidate Caitlyn Jenner, both of whom sought to intervene in the case, rejected the notion that there was any evidence Newsom had previously wanted to take the voluntary step of including his political party on
the recall ballot. They urged Arguelles to conform to the text of the law, which would require that Newsom appear without any party identification.
“He did nothing. He didn’t put a D, he didn’t put party, he didn’t misspell Democrat,” said Bradley Benbrook, an attorney for Jenner. “Now he just wants to go back and get a doover.”
Jenner, a former Olympian and reality TV star, appeared inperson in Sacramento Friday. She held a news conference where she explained that she had intervened in the case
to prevent the governor from bending the rules and to make sure Weber, a Democrat appointed seven months ago by Newsom, oversees the process fairly.
“I just wanted to be part of this lawsuit so that Shirley Weber doesn’t fold, she actually does her job,” Jenner told a room full of reporters at a hotel in downtown Sacramento. “I want transparency. I want people to see what’s happening up here in Sacramento, and the things that are going on.”
Jenner said that Newsom “absolutely blew it” when he filed a form that didn’t include his party affiliation.
In an earlier statement, she had called Newsom’s suit against Weber a “request for preferential treatment.”
Jenner has struggled to gain traction in the crowded field of challengers hoping to oust Newsom. A May poll released by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies found she had the lowest support among the prominent Republicans in the race, with just 6% of voters saying they would be inclined to back her.
While Weber has not asked Arguelles to rule in Newsom’s favor, her attorney did largely side with the governor’s arguments during the hearing Friday.
“We think the best way to jealously guard the people’s right is to give as much information to voters as possible and let them decide how to vote,” said Kevin Calia, a lawyer for Weber.