He is rapidly proving his detractors wrong. They may still be turned off by his "slickness" but he is doing what needs to be done to safeguard our elections.

🚨BREAKING: California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) will introduce new legislation making ballot seizure before they are counted and certified by a state or county official a felony. In a July 4 recorded speech, Newsom was not shy about who the law targets. www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/...

— Marc Elias (@marcelias.bsky.social) 2026-07-08T20:40:10.597Z

If he decides to run, he has my vote already.

We certainly have quite a few good Dems who could do a great job. That's a good problem!

I've got my eye on him, but I'm not ready to firmly commit myself to any particular candidate this early in the game. (I want to see the whole field first.)

is that he runs the fourth largest economy in the world, successfully, while doing things to help the people of his state. There is no other candidate that can get even close to that. Add to that, he stands up to Trump and his cronies, and makes them back down...

IF he is elected president, you know he will have to deal with GOP sabotaging from day one. Gavin has a rapid response team in gear, and they have been effective at push back. No matter which Dem gets elected President, the GOP will try to tear them apart, squeaky clean record or not. And THIS is critical to stop at day one.. If the GOP gets a foothold on attacks, it will cripple the president, who will have to spend time just responding to their attacks (See Clinton, Carter, etc.) So we need a president who know show to kick them in the nuts...

While there are candidates with better ideology, Gavin is, practically speaking, the best one out there. If he pairs with AOC for VP, I think he would be unstoppable.. Let's hope.

Who can believe we're so messed up that something like this is even necessary?

I can see Greg Abbott jumping right on this!

[Surely, I don't need a sarcasm emoji.]

were you around in the 2000 election??????????????????? I would bet that Al Gore thought that also.........

If a federal agent seized ballots, I would expect a court to find the state law cannot survive analysis under the supremacy clause. (U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2)

Elections are state matters from start to finish, even for federal office. The Constitution only mentions that Congress has some oversight. The executive branch has zip.

The section states:

It doesn't need to be expansive. It's rather clear, no? And prohibition doesn't need to be explicit to have exactly that meaning. If it were, the damn thing would take up volumes.

but I doubt SCOTUS would interpret Amendment X to prohibit federal investigation of "voter fraud."

Would a California officer really try to arrest an FBI agent attempting to seize ballots? If the FBI agent resisted, would a California officer draw a weapon? If an FBI agent drew a weapon, would a California officer shot?

around this!
You're one heckuva lawyer 🤠😆🫡

the particular batch of ballots contain the evidence of fraud. Sure, they can *investigate* fraud, but that doesn't mean they can seize ballots without explicit need to take the ballots they have evidence of wrongdoing for (you can investigate a person, but need a warrant to search their property). And it ought to need to be "needs to be seized now, rather than after they've been counted".

suggestion.

Republicans are moving heaven and earth to steal the next election.

Bravo governor Newsom!

but I'm certainly not suggesting that. Nor is Newsom.

That's why I think he would be a great President.....

The current attach has nothing to do with seizing ballots after cast and before counting. Surely there must already be felony laws covering that. If not, then by all means put that law on the books.

But what is going on at present is an effort to disenfranchise voters by looking at past ballots and using that as the basis for voter purges. That needs a different kind of felony law. It should be a felony for any person to release ballots to anybody except with a valid court order.

i thought it was essentially saying breaking away from gavin newsom
as if you don't like him anymore for whatever reason



i almost didn't click on this thread

it would have been clearer if it said breaking news from gavin newsom
(especially at 2 in the morning! lol)