A US District Court judge shot down a request to remove or amend California Governor Gavin Newsom's name from being added to the state's recall election ballots last Friday.
The request asked the court to omit Governor Newsom's name from the ballot or to add another question on the ballot which would ask residents to name a replacement for Newsom, instead of just simply voting "yes" or "no" on the recall.
If the majority votes to recall Newsom on the first question, then the individual who got the highest number of votes on the second question would then become governor, Epoch Times reports.
On whether or not the recall election ballots violate the clause in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, US District Court Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald ruled the recall election does not violate "one person, one vote."
"There is nothing unconstitutional about placing in one ballot a vote for or against the recall of the Governor and then a vote for a replacement candidate," Fitzgerald wrote in a recent ruling on Aug. 27. An appeal by the plaintiffs attorneys was submitted shortly after the judge's decision to the 9th Circuit Court.
The plaintiffs' argued against the current recall election process since a Newsom will be recalled if he receives only 49% support. If Newsom receives that percentage, the candidate running against Newsom with the highest percentage of votes will be the next Governor of California. For example, if Newsom receives 49% support and Kevin Kiley receives 15%, the highest of the other candidates, Kiley would be the next Governor of California.
California residents have a promising shot at recalling Gov @GavinNewsom.
— Katie Daviscourt?? (@KatieDaviscourt) September 1, 2021
If Newsom receives only 49% vote support, he will be recalled.
This means a candidate running against Newsom could win with 15% support as long as Newsom stays below 50%.
There are 46 candidates running.
"Plaintiff plainly feels disgruntled that a replacement candidate with a small plurality might replace a sitting governor who, based on a robust 'No' vote, might well have beaten that same replacement candidate in a general election," Fitzgerald also wrote, adding that the plaintiffs' rights were "not violated," therefore halting the election would be unfair to voters.
"As that may be," he wrote, "such disgruntlement raises no federal constitutional issues and certainly does not give the federal judiciary the right to halt the mammoth undertaking of this gubernatorial recall election."
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
