On March 25, the California Supreme Court refused to hear Gilbert v The Superior Court of Sacramento County, S295810. This is the challenge to the Secretary of State’s policy that she cannot examine the constitutional qualifications of candidates for Governor.
So now we know how long it took Fang Fang to bang bang all the judges.
Secretary of State’s policy that she cannot examine the constitutional qualifications of candidates for Governor…
….Except when it comes to their tax returns ?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/03/25/melania-trump-robot-white-house/89317981007/
ROBOT — MORE BRAINS THAN TYRANT TRUMP ???
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/army-raises-enlistment-age-42-142017697.html
OLDE DRUG HEADS FOR USA MILITARY —
TO TAKE ON ASIAN HOARDS ???
ROBOT – MORE BRAINS THEN SPAMBOT AZ-666 !!!
USSR YESTERDAY IS FAKE NEWS AND IF TRUMP WAS A TYRANT THE nAZi-666 SPAMBOT WOULD BE ALREADY DEPROGRAMMED, ITS PROGRAMMER WOULD BE DEAD OR IN A SECRET PRISON, AND THIS WEBSITE WOULD ALREADY BE OFFLINE !!!
Dang, Fang Fang bang banged the Supreme court one by one, not in a gang bang?
Relax and don’t worry, it’s going to be fine. The White People’s movement keeps getting bigger all the time. I’m dreaming of a White nation, just like the ones that I once knew. And now with mass deportation, my dream is starting to come true!
I do not understand the notion that the election authorities cannot determine if a candidate can determine if a candidate complies with the constitutional qualifications for an office. When I see a person’s name on a ballot for a particular office, I would think that the person complies with the constitutional or statutory requirements for the position and can hold the office (the issue of whether that person should hold the office is different).
As for the issue here, which is residency, I think that incumbent members of Congress (US Senators and US Representatives) have a permanent residency in their respective states/districts, and a temporary residence in Washington DC (unless they live close to DC and they choose to commute daily or to stay at a hotel if they cannot commute on a particular day).
It can be more complicated than you might think.
@JJN and Q,
In 2018, the California legislature passed SB 1250 which is codified as Elections Code $2026, which says the domicile of a legislator or congressman is presumed to be what it says on his affidavit of registration. A person has only one domicile, but may have multiple residences. The domicile is what is used for purposes of the California Constitution: resident of this State for 5 years immediately preceding the Governor’s election.”
$2026 has a long list of “not withstanding” that other residences may have that do not make them the domicile. The fact that Eric Swalwell and his wife own the $1,000,000 residence in D.C. for which they claim a homestead exemption does not make that their domicile for California electoral purposes. It may or may not disqualify their homestead exemption in D.C., but that is of no concern for California.
SB 1250 was passed in response to legislators who spend most of their time in Sacramento of maintaining tenuous relationships with their district, particularly in Southern California.
The judge in the Swalwell case then examined the issue of the person in Livermore who rents a room to Swalwell which he claims as his voting residence. The person in Livermore claims a homestead exemption, but the judge says there is nothing about such a person renting a room. Hopefully the house is not in a HOA.
California has a goofy system for filing for office. Candidates, including statewide office, file with a county election official who then transmits the application to the SOS. The certified list of candidates issued by the SOS is in part to inform all the other counties of the candidates. But as I mentioned California has a goofy system for filing for governor. The tax forms are filed with the SOS.
Prior to government-printed ballots there was no way to determine prior to the election who would receive the most votes. You could make it a campaign issue, as Tom Steyer is apparently trying to do. But it was not until after the election that non-qualification could prevent certification of an apparent winner (or even removal from office). This was the case in Texas, even after institution of the primary and government-printed ballots, and is still the case today. But over time, in Texas, checks have been added. Candidates for primary parties file with party officials. The party official need not go outside the four corners of the application, on which the candidate has sworn that they are eligible for the office. But an interested party can seek a writ of mandamus to force the party official to omit the candidate from the ballot. But the challenger must **prove** that the candidate is not eligible.
If it’s presumed to be the address on the registration, and a challenger proves that it isn’t , what happens?
@Q,
The court found that the SOS does not have a ministerial duty to investigate the qualifications of the candidate.
It is possible that they only way to enforce qualification in California is to contest the primary election:
Elections Code $16101 Any candidate at a primary election may contest the right of another candidate to nomination to the same office by filing an affidavit alleging any of the following grounds, that:
(a) The defendant is not eligible to the office in dispute.
Note that there are three, and possibly four or five gubernatorial candidates who did not live in California for five years prior to the November 2026 election. Perhaps you could seek a writ of mandamus.
But, someone else proving that a candidate doesn’t live at the address where they registered to vote who is not the SOS – that proof is just ignored?
So, they knock off candidates for not supplying tax returns or for making any mistake in how they are submitted, none of which is in their constitution, but keep them on even if someone else independently proves that they domicile out of state and/or committed voter registration fraud, even though living in the state actually is in their constitution?
So, effectively, statute law, SOS regulations, and court findings are more important than the constitution?
Isn’t that backwards?
What am I getting wrong here?
@Q,
You ask, “What am I getting wrong here?”
A: The Constitution gives the outline of the election process. Legislation and regulations supply the details.
You apparently believe that the SOS has the legal authority to knock a candidate off the ballot. Even if the SOS had that authority, would you want her being able to do that without judicial oversight?
Joel Gilbert alleged that Eric Swalwell had not resided in California for the previous five years. An allegation does not constitute proof.
The district court held a hearing, and considered the evidence and arguments insufficient to make a conclusion that Swalwell had not resided in California the previous five years. Further the court concluded that SOS Weber did not have a ministerial duty to determine whether Swalwell has resided in California the previous five years.
In Texas, a filing officer is required to screen candidates for eligibility. They are only required to look at the face of the application (“four squares”) and the application includes information about residency and a sworn statement by the candidate that he is eligible. In Texas, a gubernatorial candidate must have resided in Texas for five years. So if a candidate were to say that he had lived in the State for three years, the filing officer could reject his application. A writ of mandamus may also be sought to compel the filing officer to exclude a candidate from the ballot. This is a judicial proceeding in which the petitioner may prove that a candidate is not eligible for the office, and therefore not eligible to be placed on the ballot or elected. In Texas, these challenges are typically for residency in a district, and usually lose. It is difficult to prove where a persons residence is. Except for independent gubernatorial candidates, it would not be the SOS who was sued, but rather a political party official.
Perhaps California should adopt this system. Also it seems strange that gubernatorial candidates file in their county of residence. I think there were around 20 counties involved for the 2026 election.
How do you deduce what I believe, if I believe anything, from questions?
If the SOS has no authority to knock any candidates off the ballot, how are they knocking candidates off the ballot for tax return related errors?