Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

senseandsensibility

(26,163 posts) Wed Jul 8, 2026, 06:42 PM 19 hrs ago

327

Breaking from Gavin Newsom [View all]

From democracydocket : 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."

Way to go, Gov. Newsom. He's on offense again, just like he was when he put the redistricting proposition on the ballot (and won).

May other Governors follow.

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Breaking from Gavin Newsom [View all] senseandsensibility 19 hrs ago OP

We all love our Governor! skylucy 18 hrs ago #1

Oh yes we do senseandsensibility 18 hrs ago #3

K & R.................. Lovie777 18 hrs ago #2

here as well, Marc Elias DoBW 18 hrs ago #4

He'd make a good president. calimary 18 hrs ago #6

He's my favorite so far. llmart 17 hrs ago #10

thats why i reelected him before. AllaN01Bear 16 hrs ago #24

I will definitely give Newsom close consideration. ShazzieB 11 hrs ago #35

His best qualification azureblue 4 hrs ago #39

I'm surprised it wasn't all along! some_of_us_are_sane 17 hrs ago #9

He's been at the vanguard of MAGA 2.0 resistance from Day 1. BannonsLiver 18 hrs ago #5

Every state needs to do this IMMEDIATELY FakeNoose 18 hrs ago #7

You're right. It should not be necessary. hamsterjill 17 hrs ago #19

Kick Exp 17 hrs ago #8

Purple states must take the same steps. oasis 17 hrs ago #11

This would actually probably survive the supremacy clause too SSJVegeta 17 hrs ago #12

Yes, because states are in charge of elections, not the feds. wnylib 16 hrs ago #26

And it is explicitly stated in the constitution. A fact that matters to 5 whole justices so far. SSJVegeta 15 hrs ago #31

LOL popsdenver 10 hrs ago #36

I'm skeptical. TomSlick 17 hrs ago #13

Nope. Article I, Section 4. paleotn 17 hrs ago #15

I don't read Article I, Section 4 that expansively. TomSlick 17 hrs ago #17

Tenth Amendment. paleotn 17 hrs ago #18

That's a better argument TomSlick 17 hrs ago #20

You're retired JAG, in Arkansas, and you're Texas two step dancing MerryBlooms 15 hrs ago #29

The legislation can be written so that a proper judicial warrant would be needed with reason to believe muriel_volestrangler 4 hrs ago #38

Post removed Post removed 17 hrs ago #16

Federal agents are also armed and authorized to shoot someone threatening with a weapon. TomSlick 17 hrs ago #21

depends who gets the drop on who dave99 16 hrs ago #25

Ridiculous and illegal senseandsensibility 17 hrs ago #22

No, that's not how any of this works. MerryBlooms 15 hrs ago #30

Democrats have to be proactive in these treacherous times dlk 17 hrs ago #14

ding. this . AllaN01Bear 16 hrs ago #23

Post removed Post removed 16 hrs ago #27

I don't know who you're talking about senseandsensibility 16 hrs ago #28

This is exactly what we need!! Proactive vs reactive!!! Pisces 14 hrs ago #32

He thinks and operates from a broad perspective. Sogo 14 hrs ago #33

THis is good, but completely misss the point Bluetus 12 hrs ago #34

i totally misunderstood the headline orleans 10 hrs ago #37

Leading the way. Martin68 40 min ago #40