Newsom loses bid to have party name on recall ballot

A Sacramento judge has denied Gov. Gavin Newsom's bid to force Secretary of State Shirley Weber to add his Democratic Party identification to the Sept. 14 recall ballot.

Newsom's campaign attorneys inadvertently left his party off of paperwork they filed last year with the secretary of state's office. After a Friday hearing that involved attorneys for Newsom, Weber and two proposed intervenors, Judge James P. Arguelles promised to rule Monday. Newsom v. Weber, 34-2021-80003666-CU-MW-GDS (Sac. Super. Ct., filed June 28, 2021).

Arguelles also approved intervention motions filed by Republican recall candidate Caitlyn Jenner and the California Patriot Coalition -- Recall Governor Gavin Newsom.

"We're grateful for today's ruling by Judge Arguelles," Eric P. Early, who represented the Patriot Coalition as the managing partner of Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP in Los Angeles, said in an email. "He followed the law and that's all we can ask for. No one is above the law, and this ruling makes clear that includes Gavin Newsom."

Arguelles wrote there was "no ministerial duty to accept the untimely party designation."

"Section 11320(c) (3) provides that the elected officer's party preference shall not appear on the recall ballot unless the officer makes the designation at the time the answer is filed," Arguelles wrote. "Under the Elections Code, the term 'shall' is mandatory whereas 'may' is permissive. ... Section 11320(c) unambiguously obligated Secretary Weber to deny Governor Newsom's request to designate his party preference after he filed his answer. (See Sonoma County Nuclear Free Zone v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cai. App. 3d 167, 178."

Ironically, the section of state election law Arguelles cited came from a law Newsom signed in 2019. SB 151 provided that a candidate who is the subject of a voter recall can list their party identification on the ballot. But it also included the provision: "If the officer elects not to have the officer's political party preference identified on the ballot, or if the officer fails to inform the Secretary of State whether the officer elects to have a party preference identified on the ballot by the deadline for the officer to file an answer with the Secretary of State, the statement of party preference shall not appear on the ballot."

Arguelles also rejected as irrelevant arguments that Newsom was in "substantial compliance" with the law and that he should not be denied the right to list his party when other candidates must list their party preference. SB 151 gave the incumbents discretion to omit their party, while other candidates face a requirement. The judge also wrote the result of the error will be simply to omit the fact Newsom is a Democrat, rather than to mislead voters by stating his party preference is "none."

"Moreover, none of the cases on which Governor Newsom relies involved the failure to meet a statutory deadline," Arguelles wrote.

Newsom was represented by attorneys with Olson Remcho LLP, the same firm that made the paperwork error.

A spokesman for the Newsom campaign did not respond to an email seeking comment by press time.