California's Preemptive Strike: Defending Democracy or Undermining Electoral Integrity?

The Legislative Context and Constitutional Framework

California State Senator Tom Umberg, a Santa Ana Democrat and chairperson of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has introduced Senate Bill 46, legislation specifically designed to prevent former President Donald Trump from appearing on California’s presidential ballot in 2028. The bill would make it illegal for the California Secretary of State to place any presidential or vice-presidential candidate on the ballot who does not meet constitutional requirements for those offices, requiring candidates to affirm under oath their constitutional qualifications with penalty of perjury.

The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly states that “no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,” establishing an unambiguous term limit that has governed American presidential politics since its ratification in 1951. Senator Umberg’s legislation emerges in response to suggestions from Harvard scholar and former Trump legal advisor Alan Dershowitz, who has argued that the 22nd Amendment might not provide an “airtight ban” on a third Trump term under certain interpretations.

Senator Umberg has explicitly framed this legislation as targeting what he calls Trump’s “cockamamie scheme” and “delusion” about potentially running for a third term. The mechanism established by SB 46 would allow electors to challenge a candidate’s qualifications by petitioning the Superior Court of Sacramento, creating a judicial review process for presidential ballot access that goes beyond the existing constitutional framework.

Additional Legislative Developments in California

The article also highlights other significant legislative developments in California, including a bill that would enable Californians aged 80 and older to permanently opt-out of jury duty without requiring medical documentation. This legislation, introduced by Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, aims to reduce administrative burdens on seniors while maintaining judicial integrity.

Additionally, the piece covers former State Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero’s campaign for lieutenant governor as a Republican candidate. Romero, who previously served as a Democrat representing east Los Angeles, has switched parties and now positions herself as holding “Sacramento Democrats accountable for their failures on homelessness, affordability, crime, education and housing.”

The Dangerous Precedent of Politically-Motivated Ballot Access Restrictions

While defending constitutional principles represents a fundamental duty of all elected officials, the explicit targeting of a specific individual years before a potential candidacy raises profound concerns about the politicization of election administration. Senator Umberg’s candid admission that this legislation serves as part of his personal legacy, given his impending departure from the Senate, underscores the political rather than purely constitutional motivations behind this bill.

The foundation of American democracy rests on consistent, impartial application of election laws and procedures. When states begin crafting legislation specifically designed to exclude particular individuals from ballot access, they risk creating a dangerous precedent where the party in power can manipulate election rules to disadvantage political opponents. This approach mirrors concerning developments in other democracies where incumbent parties have changed election laws to maintain power, ultimately eroding public trust in democratic institutions.

California’s position as the nation’s largest state and a consistent Democratic stronghold gives this legislation particular significance. By taking this preemptive action against a potential Trump candidacy, California risks triggering retaliatory measures from Republican-controlled states against Democratic candidates, potentially leading to a cycle of electoral manipulation that could fundamentally damage the integrity of presidential elections nationwide.

Constitutional Interpretation and Judicial Overreach Concerns

The legislation raises serious questions about the proper division of responsibilities between state and federal authorities in determining presidential eligibility. While states undoubtedly have authority over ballot access procedures, creating additional qualification requirements beyond those explicitly stated in the Constitution may represent an overreach of state power.

The judicial review mechanism established by SB 46 could potentially involve California courts in making determinations about federal constitutional qualifications, creating the possibility of conflicting rulings across different states regarding the same candidate’s eligibility. This fragmentation could lead to constitutional crises and undermine the uniform application of presidential qualification standards across the United States.

Furthermore, the requirement for candidates to affirm their qualifications under penalty of perjury creates a potentially weaponizable process where political opponents could threaten candidates with criminal charges for good-faith constitutional interpretations. While no serious legal scholar believes the 22nd Amendment permits a third Trump term, the principle of allowing diverse constitutional interpretations without criminal penalty remains important for healthy democratic discourse.

The Erosion of Public Trust in Democratic Institutions

Perhaps the most damaging aspect of this legislation is its potential to further erode public trust in American democratic institutions. In an era already characterized by deep political polarization and widespread suspicion of electoral integrity, actions that appear as politically-motivated attempts to manipulate ballot access can reinforce narratives about “rigged systems” and undermine confidence in the fundamental fairness of elections.

The proper venue for addressing concerns about potential third-term candidacies should be through existing constitutional mechanisms, including potential challenges through the Electoral College counting process or congressional objection procedures. These established federal processes provide appropriate safeguards while maintaining consistency across states and avoiding the appearance of partisan manipulation.

California lawmakers would better serve democratic principles by focusing on strengthening election infrastructure, ensuring voting access, and promoting civic education rather than engaging in preemptive political maneuvering against hypothetical future candidacies. True commitment to constitutional principles requires trusting existing mechanisms and processes rather than creating new, politically-targeted restrictions.

Conclusion: Principle Over Partisanship in Defense of Democracy

The introduction of Senate Bill 46 represents a concerning development in American electoral politics, where constitutional principles risk becoming weapons in partisan battles rather than foundations of democratic governance. While the 22nd Amendment’s term limits represent a crucial safeguard against presidential overreach, defending this principle requires consistent, impartial application rather than politically-motivated legislation targeting specific individuals.

American democracy faces significant challenges from declining public trust, intense polarization, and threats to electoral integrity. In this context, actions that appear as partisan manipulation of election rules, even when justified as defending constitutional principles, ultimately damage the very democratic norms they purport to protect. California lawmakers should reconsider this approach and instead focus on building confidence in electoral systems through transparent, impartial administration that respects both the letter and spirit of constitutional governance.

The preservation of American democracy requires commitment to principles over partisanship, to processes over personalities, and to institutional integrity over short-term political advantage. While concerns about potential constitutional violations deserve serious attention, the appropriate response involves strengthening existing constitutional mechanisms rather than creating new politically-targeted restrictions that risk further eroding public trust in our democratic system.