California Governor Gavin Newsom has strongly come out against efforts by fellow California Democrats to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 California primary ballot. The California primary is scheduled for “Super Tuesday” on March 5.

....[I]n a Friday afternoon statement, Newsom telegraphed to his fellow California Democrats not to get ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court, which will almost certainly be the final arbiter of that decision. 

“There is no doubt that Donald Trump is a threat to our liberties and even to our democracy,” Newsom said, “but in California, we defeat candidates at the polls. Everything else is a political distraction.”

Newsom’s comment comes after a December 20 letter from California Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, following the Colorado Supreme Court decision to remove Trump from the Colorado 2024 primary ballot. In Kounakakis’ letter, she urged Weber to:

….explore every legal option to remove former President Donald Trump from California’s 2024 presidential primary ballot.

Kounalakis emphasized the need for haste on Weber’s part, as the announcement by Weber’s office of candidates qualified for the ballot is December 28.

Newsom’s communication clearly signals that he expects the Colorado Supreme Court decision to be overturned by the United States Supreme Court. As pointed out here by Nick Arama on December 21, the legal path is clear for overturning the Colorado decision.

Even though the Colorado Supreme Court justices were all appointed by Democratic governors, it was still a 4-3 decision. The decision has been stayed pending an appeal to SCOTUS by Jan. 4, with the primary deadline to have the names in being Jan. 5.  

There were three written dissents in the case, but the dissent that is catching everyone's eye is the dissent from Justice Carlos Samour. Some have termed it a "roadmap" for the SCOTUS to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court. 

Samour excoriated the majority for a decision that "flies in the face of the due process doctrine.”

One of the main points of contention is who or what body has the power to enforce or carry out Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says individuals who engaged in an insurrection may not hold office. Section 5 of the same amendment says Congress has the power to pass laws to enforce section 3. 

In Samour’s dissent, he argues Congress passed a law in 1870 allowing for both civil and criminal enforcement of Section 3, though the law was repealed and replaced in 1948. The new law, 18 U.S.C § 2383, says an individual can be banned from holding office if they are charged and convicted under the law. Trump has not been charged under said statute, as pointed out by Samour.

So if Trump hasn't been charged, much less convicted, under that statute that applies, he cannot be removed on this basis, according to Samour. There are other questions about whether or not this provision would even apply to Trump as the president — the trial court was of the opinion it did not apply to him. But you don't have to get to that if they haven't even charged him under 18 U.S.C § 2383, according to Samour. 

Newsom is a savvy politician, highly skilled in reading the tea leaves. His comment to fellow party members telling them to cool the engines regarding Trump. His state’s primary ballot is on track with other recent denouements by him, such as his recent veto of a bill seeking to criminalize parents who engage in contrarian yet not threatening behavior at school board meetings. While labeling such efforts as pandering is fair game, it does indicate how, given the media’s infatuation with Newsom and the immediate whitewashing of his professional and personal foibles should he indeed run for President, he cannot be dismissed out of hand--as he, unlike the overwhelming majority of his progressive brethren, does possess at least some common sense regarding political matters.