Hearing 7/9/21 On Gov. Newsom Lawsuit Against SOS to Get Party ID on Recall Ballot

Orrin Heatlie, Mike Netter and the California Patriot Coalition – Recall Governor Gavin Newsom filed a Motion to Intervene in Newsom’s lawsuit filed last week against his appointed Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

As the Globe reported last week, Governor Gavin Newsom filed a lawsuit against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber Monday asking the court to require the Secretary of State print Newsom’s political party on the recall ballots, after neglecting to file the proper party notice 16 months ago.

“Lawmakers who are the subject of a recall have the option to file a notice of party preference after the recall notice is first submitted, which for Newsom would have been 16 months ago in February 2020,” the Globe reported. “However, he didn’t file a notice with the Secretary of State’s office until June 19, 2021, well over a year past the deadline. Newsom’s team asked for the party to be listed on the ballot due to it being a ‘good faith mistake,’ but Secretary Weber stuck with the law.”

Before Senate Bill 151 passed and was signed by Newsom in 2019, politicians targeted in recalls were not allowed to have their party next to their names.

The recall Gavin Newsom coalition filed an Ex Parte Application to Intervene in the Newsom lawsuit:

Newsom is asking for the Court to allow him to place a “D” next to his name on the recall election ballot, even though Newsom blew the deadline for requiring the Secretary of State to do so by 16 months, the intervenors said.  “We note that the deadline blown by Newsom is contained in a statute that Newsom himself signed into law.”

The Ex Parte Application says:

“The Proposed Intervenors simply seek to have Newsom follow the law. The arguments articulated by Newsom in his Petition/Complaint reveal precisely why his recall is being sought in the first place. Rather than adhere to the clearly established law of this state, Newsom instead seeks to thwart the rules to suit his own convenience and political positions (or, as in this case, his own incompetence). Making matters worse – Newsom is the very person who signed into law the statute he now seeks to skirt.”

“Elections Code section 11320(c) clearly and unequivocally states that the officer subject to a recall “shall 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.” (Emphasis added.) The Legislature’s use of the term “shall” states a mandatory requirement.  As his lawsuit now readily admits, Newsom failed to meet this deadline. In fact, he did not file his notice of party preference until over a year after his answer was filed, and thus more than a year after his law required his notice of party preference to be filed.”

The Ex Parte Application (below) pulls no punches:

“Ideally, a competent and forthright leader in this situation would have followed the law – his law – in the first place, and once he violated the law, accepted the consequences thereof. Newsom is no such leader. On the contrary, Newsom now attempts to convince this Court that this rule should not apply to him, as it is somehow purposeless and unnecessary.”

The intervenors argue the prejudice to those seeking to recall Newsom will be significant should Newsom be allowed to provide himself with a significant advantage of putting a “D” or “Democrat” next to his name on the ballot in violation of the requirements of Elections Code section 11320(c).

“And no one can doubt for a moment, that if the tables were turned and for example, a prominent candidate for the special recall election fails to timely comply with the nomination documents, Newsom and the Secretary of State will provide them no leniency whatsoever and preclude such candidate from appearing on the recall ballot,” the Ex Parte Application says. “It is left to the Proposed Intervenors to argue for themselves and the great People of California to require that Newsom follow the law and not be given special treatment.”

Lead Counsel for California Patriot Coalition and Candidate for California Attorney General Eric Early, stated, “No one is above-the-law, certainly not Gavin Newsom. His terrible judgment, arbitrary and capricious laws, rules and orders have destroyed tens of thousands of small businesses, hundreds of thousands of jobs and countless lives. It is time that he be made to follow his own laws.”

The California Superior Court in Sacramento will rule on the motion to intervene on Friday, July 9, 2021 at 9:30AM in Department 17 via zoom.