Shirley Weber, the Secretary of State for California, has decided to keep ex-President Donald Trump’s name on the presidential primary ballot for the state. This decision comes amidst requests from the Lieutenant Governor of California to have him removed.
Shirley Weber, who is affiliated with the Democratic Party, did not provide any remarks following the announcement. The complete roster of approved contenders for the upcoming March 5 primary was revealed, confirming Trump’s inclusion.
Previously, Weber emphasized her office’s dedication to upholding the law. This statement was made in response to an open letter from Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, who advocated for Trump’s exclusion from the ballot.
Weber highlighted the complexity of removing a candidate under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Section Three, underscoring the seriousness of such a decision.
Contrary to this move, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat, expressed his belief that Trump should be challenged and defeated in the electoral process rather than being removed from the ballot. He described any other approach as a mere political diversion.
While some Democratic figures in California aligned with Kounalakis in calling for Trump’s removal, following a precedent set by the Colorado Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause,” others, like Governor Newsom, disagreed.
Nationally, different states have taken varied stances on this issue. For instance, Shenna Bellows, Maine’s Secretary of State and a member of the Democratic Party, announced Trump’s exclusion from their ballot. Conversely, Michigan decided to keep him on theirs.
Weber’s decision was crucial as it was necessary to finalize the list of candidates for California’s primary election in a timely manner, ensuring the preparation of ballots, as reported by The New York Times.
Despite the Democratic majority in California’s government, which led to speculations about a potential ballot challenge, legal experts clarified that the Secretary of State in California does not have absolute power to disqualify a presidential candidate. This decision underscores the complex interplay of legal and political considerations in election processes.
