Our Managing Editor Jennifer Van Laar wrote about this lawsuit filed by a felonious attorney and two plaintiffs who were fed an argument crafted by a Berkeley professor. For decades, this professor has worked, and is still working, on behalf of Gavin Newsom and his San Francisco cronies.

A blow here to UC Berkeley's Erwin Chemerinsky, who opined in @nytimes that California recall structure is unconstitutional and begged someone to sue

— Jeremy B. White (@JeremyBWhite) August 27, 2021

Attorneys Harmeet Dhillon and Mark Meuser interceded to defend the lawsuit. Soon after the lawsuit was filed, one of the shifty plaintiffs, attorney Rex Julian Beaber, was removed from the suit.

BTW it looks like one of the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit, Rex Julian Beaber, dropped out of the case last week.

Harmeet Dhillon says she's representing three voters who already cast ballots in the recall. pic.twitter.com/2o7zjzcHeP

— Libby Denkmann (@libdenk) August 25, 2021

Dhillon’s Liberty Center won the argument on behalf of the California people.

In a tweet announcing the favorable ruling, Dhillon said: this is a win for participatory democracy.

BREAKING! Court rejects lawsuit to declare recall unconstitutional—happy to see arguments we @dhillonlaw made on behalf of three citizens who already voted, in court’s reasoning. We stood up for participatory democracy in California, and the people won! Now vote YES on recall! 🗳 pic.twitter.com/ga4gwkDGjt

— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) August 27, 2021

BREAKING! Court rejects lawsuit to declare recall unconstitutional—happy to see arguments we @dhillonlaw made on behalf of three citizens who already voted, in court’s reasoning. We stood up for participatory democracy in California, and the people won! Now vote YES on recall!

In the case challenging the constitutionality of the state's recall process, Judge Michael Fitzgerald denies the request for a preliminary injunction.

Here's the legalese for "hell no": pic.twitter.com/u0HQSvdR28

— Ben Christopher (@FromBenC) August 27, 2021

From the ruling:

The Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff has established none of the requirements for issuing a preliminary injunction. This request is for a mandatory injunction, which are disfavored. Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights simply are not violated; therefore, there is no chance that Plaintiff could prevail on the merits. Plaintiff has established no equitable factor favoring a preliminary injunction. In particular, the delay in filing this lawsuit means that Plaintiff seeks to halt an election that, in fact, has already begun, which is a strong indicator that equitable factors are not present here. Finally, decisions of the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit strongly indicate that an injunction should not issue.

The request for declaratory relief is denied for the same reasons, and also for being procedurally improper. (See Opposition at 15 n.12).

In layman speak: Hell, to the NO.

Since 1911, there have been 55 attempts to recall a California governor. Out of that 110 year history, there has only been one successful recall of a governor: The 2003 Recall of Gray Davis, a Democrat. Davis was replaced by Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.

With 3 million ballots already submitted in the 2021 Special Election to Recall Gavin Newsom, the momentum is already set. Citizens would be disenfranchised of their vote had this injunction been granted.

Judge Michael Fitzgerald recognized the Constitution as well as the moment in time.

Gavin Newsom needs to learn to do the same.

The official election date is September 14. All ballots must be postmarked by that date.