Report: Newsom Will Choose EMILY’s List President Laphonza Butler to Fill Feinstein’s Senate Seat
Of course Newsom picks a huge abortion supporter.
Of course California Gov. Gavin Newsom has his eyes on a huge abortion supporter to take over Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s seat.
Reports surfaced Sunday night stating Newsom will choose EMILY’s List President Laphonza Butler:
California Gov. Gavin Newsom will appoint EMILY’s List President Laphonza Butler to fill the seat of the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, elevating the head of a fundraising juggernaut that works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights, according to a person familiar with the decision.
Newsom is moving swiftly to name the next senator, two days after Feinstein’s death and just as a perilously split Congress narrowly averted a government shutdown. Senate Democrats are in need of every vote in the closely divided chamber.
The announcement was expected to come Monday, and an adviser to the governor, Anthony York, told POLITICO that Newsom is making his appointment without putting limitations or preconditions on his pick running for the seat in 2024. That means Butler could decide to join the sprawling and competitive field of Democratic contenders seeking to succeed Feinstein, with special elections now layered on top of the March primary and November runoff.
Newsom promised to appoint a black woman to Feinstein’s seat if she didn’t finish her term.
Butler will only serve through 2024 because that is when Feinstein’s term ends.
Butler could run for the seat but will face off against Reps. Barbara Lee, Katie Porter, and Adam Schiff.
Lee is a black woman, but Newsom said he wouldn’t pick someone who is running for the seat.
One problem. where does Butler reside? California or Maryland?
Interesting that Newsom’s reported choice for Senator from California lists her state of residence as Maryland in her X bio. pic.twitter.com/gFxU95HCjF
— Elex Michaelson (@Elex_Michaelson) October 2, 2023
FEC filings from EMILY's List record Laphonza Butler's residence as Silver Springs, Maryland as recently as 31 days ago. https://t.co/FjZkJ9Ugf0 pic.twitter.com/2FzA8MVqfU
— Rob Pyers (@rpyers) October 2, 2023
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Of course, he did promise to appoint a left-wing black woman
Anyone is better than Lee and Shitt!
Isn’t it typical that just when SCOTUS starts banning racial set-asides, our politicians start using with the frequency of their morning coffee?
Makes sense. It’s the one field where SCOTUS can’t interfere, and they’re entitled to discriminate as much as they like.
Who?
Seriously, who is this person? Generally senate appointments are people we’ve heard of before, because they hold or once held some other office, or are otherwise in the public eye. This person is an unknown. At least I’ve never heard of her.
I assume that if she decides to run for reelection, she has automatic support from EMILY’s List.
Black, lesbian, or lesbian black.. hard to tell which is more important. Oh, and major fundraiser… Those are what counts,,, certainly not the needs of the constituents.
No, what counts is supporting anything that results in more government. If those in fedgov, today and those over the last 110 years (since 16th Am.), had been true to their oath, fedgov would be 5% of today’s beast. The beast came about through arrogation of power because it can’t be found in the text. If more power is wanted/needed, Article V (the amendment process) is the method.
You forgot rabidly pro-abortion. Abortion seems to be an insatiable desire for democrats these days.
The progressive fascist party (Dems) main constituency is women. Women don’t think with their heads only with their emotions. This Women appeals to women supposedly.
The progressive fascist party (Dems) main constituency is women. Women generally don’t think with their heads, but with their emotions. This Women appeals to women supposedly.
Why do lesbos care about abortion? Is it a money grab?
Another form of appointment is the spouse of the dead politician. Their qualification is being the spouse of a dead politician.
Well, yes, because they have high name recognition, and the almost automatic support of their late spouse’s voters.
Said differently, “Because the constituents are idiots and vote for celebrity/fame instead of doing the job described in the Constitution.”
“I assume that if she decides to run for reelection, she has automatic support from EMILY’s List.”
I think the whole point is that she promises NOT to run for re-election.
Ha ha ha ha ha! “Promises.” I made a funny.
Her state of residence shouldn’t be an issue.
A senator only has to be a resident of the state she represents on the day she’s elected.
She’s not being elected, this is just a temporary appointment, so I don’t think she even has to be a CA resident at all.
But if she wants to be reelected, she has until election day 2024 to change her residence. And then she can change it back the day after the election.
“be[ing] an inhabitant” is different from just living there that day. Much different.
That said, the verb “elected” applied to Senators in the Constitution is not the plain English meaning of popular election, since Senators were not forced to be chosen by popular election until much later with the 17th Amendment.
That”elected” in the Constitution could only be referring to the legislature’s method of choosing a Senator, which is what the mechanism was when that was written (as the beginning of that section reads: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,”
So, I don’t see how the mechanism for replacing a Senator somehow does not have to adhere to the same requirements as the normal choosing of that Senate seat.
As usual you are completely ignorant, and would do better to be quiet and listen to people who know what they’re talking about.
“Inhabitant” is an exact synonym for “resident”. And one can change one’s residence at any time.
And “elected” in the constitution means exactly the same thing as it means today. Senators were elected by their state’s legislature. Now they’re elected by their state’s citizens. Nothing else changed. The qualification clause says “elected” and means “elected”. But this woman is not being elected. The state executive is making a temporary appointment, as the state legislature authorized him to do. And the qualification clause says nothing about being a state resident on the day that a temporary appointment is made.
LOL.
They were CHOSEN by the state legislature, in whatever manner that legislature wanted. They could have flipped coins or used a dartboard to pick their Senator. That is not “elected” and is not anything close to “the same thing” as popular election, just with a different group of people.
In this case, the Senator is now CHOSEN by the governor, because that is the method the legislature decided on.
Your claim that because this is a replacement and not an election (something with Senators that was not Constitutionally required until the 17th amendment) then the basic Constitutional requirement of being AN INHABITANT is not in force is laughable.
Idiot.
The only method a legislature has for choosing anything is by voting. Therefore “chosen by the legislature” means exactly the same thing as “elected by the legislature”. Each individual legislator is free to decide how to vote by using a dartboard, just as each individual voter is free now, but the legislature cannot decide to skip the election and use a dartboard. Not even by voting for such a procedure. It can do it for presidential electors, because those are not required to be chosen by the legislature but rather appointed in whichever manner the legislature directs, so the legislature can direct using a dartboard. But it cannot direct the manner of a senator’s appointment, it must choose the senator itself, and that means holding a vote, and thus electing the senator.
The constitution says explicitly that senators are elected. “When elected”. You can’t get any clearer than that. Whereas replacements are not elected, nor chosen, but temporarily appointed. Election and appointment are two completely distinct methods and cannot be confused.
(Presidential electors are not elected, they are appointed, even if the method of appointment we use today happens to be an election. But the president they choose is elected.)
So no, she does not have to be a state resident when she is appointed. And a senator who is elected only needs to be a state resident on the day of her election; she can move to Washington immediately thereafter, which many senators do. Senators are not expected to remain state residents during their terms.
but the legislature cannot decide to skip the election and use a dartboard. Not even by voting for such a procedure.
So, there’s NOTHING in Article 1, Section 3 about temporary appointments. Which is where the requirements for Senator are written.
The allowance for temporary appointments comes in the 17th Amendment. And NOWHERE in that amendment does it rescind or make a distinction between requirements for election or appointment.
Given the standard of interpreting the Constitution – previous writings are an assumption when interpreting new bits – I’d say the appointment of a temporary Senator most certainly does require they be a resident of the state.
(And, being a resident does not merely mean having an address in that state. It requires that you change your DL, re-register your vehicles, re-register for voting [and not vote in your old state of residence], put yourself under the purview of any tax regime in the state, etc. At least, not by law for us peons.)
I will say that you are more right (given current language – ‘inhabitant’ v ‘resident’) than I would admit about them being able to simply move. It is a conundrum that should be fixed.
“All senators and representative shall be at the time of their election and throughout their term a legal resident of the state and/or district which they represent. Redrawing of district lines to exclude a representative’s current abode from his current district shall not disqualify him from continuing to represent said district, until such time as a new election for the seat occurs. Otherwise, removing oneself from the district or state which is represented will result in immediate disqualification from office.”
Bear in mind that the constitution doesn’t require states to divide themselves into districts. Congressional legislation does require that, but Congress can change that whenever it likes.
By the way, Article 1 Section 4 explicitly mentions “elections for senators”. Which means, contra the idiot who claimed otherwise, the vote at which the legislature chose a senator was an election, and senators were elected. But temporary appointments were not.
Actually there is. If a senate seat became vacant while the state’s legislature was in recess, the governor was empowered (by the constitution itself, not the legislature) to make a temporary appointment until the legislature could elect a new one. And since the temporary appointment was not elected, he didn’t need to be a state inhabitant.
The 17th doesn’t say anything about qualifications, which means the ones in Article 1 prevail. So a temporary senator must be at least 30 years old, and must have been a US citizen for at least 9 years, and when elected he must be an inhabitant of that state.
The 17th says “make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election”; so it clearly distinguishes between appointment and election, just as the original provision in Article 1 did. Whomever the people elect to finish out Feinstein’s term will have to be a CA inhabitant on the day of the election, but the temporary appointment doesn’t.
always the insults
As usual you are completely ignorant, and would do better to be quiet and listen to people who know what they’re talking about.
You’re becoming more and more of a jerk about your pedantry, Milhouse. Even if he’s wrong, you’ve been using this statement a lot lately, and it’s probably something you should take a knee on.
Both knees
The state executive is making a temporary appointment, as the state legislature authorized him to do.
Wait a minute. If the legislature VOTED to allow the governor to make a temporary appointment, and however the state previously decided to select them is considered “electing”, then why wouldn’t the act of the governor flow directly from the VOTING the legislature did? And, therefore, all of the requirements for Senator would have to be fulfilled by his selection?
Dude, your pedantry is slipping.
Try reading the damned constitution.
Senators are elected; temporary replacements are appointed. Those are the words the constitution uses.
When the legislature votes on a senator, as it used to do, that is an election. When it votes to pass a law, that is not an election; that the subject of the law is to give someone authority to make an appointment, it’s still not an election.
Note that the legislatures could not have voted to authorize the governor to choose the state’s senators. Any such law would have been invalid.
The secretary of state is not elected, even though congress voted to create the office and let the president appoint someone to hold it. It’s very simple.
“Inhabitant” is an exact synonym for “resident”.
Actually, it isn’t. The legal term “resident” when used as a requirement means you intend to make it your home, and to exercise the responsibilities of being such. It almost always means you change your DL, vehicle registration, voting registration, etc.
I know this because there is a law, nicknames “The Rule Of Threes” governing military personnel that requires you maintain those above items in your “state of legal residence” OR in the state to which you are currently assigned, but you may not retain any of those items in any other state. That law is an exemption to the normal rule that you maintain those above items ONLY in one state – the state of your legal residence.
The military member is “inhabiting” one state, but a legal “resident” of another state.
I don’t understand why you get down ticks for stating fact.
Ok
When offering an honest cogent argument or opinion or fact (the caveat being intentionally offensive) a down tick is often for effect and should be ignored. It’s not like you “shot their dog”…it’s just a comment.
I disagree a representative should live in their elected area. Carpet baggers like Romney when he was the governor of Massachusetts didn’t have skin in the game. He left that office and never looked back, The result was Deval Patrick a liberal grifter. This is why DC became it’s own city state. They rule, not represent the constituents they were elected by. We suffer their edicts that do not affects themselves. You think if they were put in the Soc Sec system for pensions and healthcare, the systems would be in such shambles? They consider themselves above us, like King George the third of England. The Constitution is not a living document that needs to change to accommodate the modern world. The Constitution is about human nature and that has not improved on it’s own in five thousand years. You may not like the constitution, with it’s restrictive language but it is truly the closest to perfection man has come up with. It is the corruption of our politicians that soil the idea of a democratic republic. I fear the status Quo is daring us to use the founding father’s solution. In the small print if you look at these politicians, there goal is control, and day by day their toolbox to reach that goal expands.
The constitution does not require any such thing. A representative, on election day, may reside anywhere in the same state. On other days there are no residence requirements at all.
Note that the residence requirement is the only one that applies on election day; the other requirements apply from when the member is sworn in. So a 24-year-old who lives in San Diego can be elected from a CA district on the Oregon border, and then move to DC and be sworn in on her 25th birthday.
So now Maryland has 4 Senators including her and Massachusetts’s own Ed Markey who hasn’t resided in MA in decades but represents Chevy Chase well.
Markey has a house in Malden, which is his legal domicile. That’s the address on his driver’s license if he has one, it’s where he votes, and it’s the address the IRS has for him.
Many congressmen have second homes in DC. It’s almost a requirement for many of them, and when the constitution was ratified this was even more so, since travel back to ones home state took days, and in some cases weeks.
Wikipedia: Laphonza Butler
Personal life
Governor Newsom’s office stated Butler would reregister to vote in California before taking office as a senator.[20]
To register to vote in California, you must be:
A United States citizen and a resident of California,
Becoming a Legal Resident of California
Sign a lease on a house or apartment and plan to live in California for at least 9 months to establish your residency.
.. how can you plan to live in California for 9 months when you will be in DC ?
Wikipedia: Laphonza Butler
Personal life
Butler is lesbian.[18]
She and her partner, Neneki Lee, have a daughter. They moved to Maryland in 2021 when she assumed the presidency of EMILY’s List.[19]
“Plan to live”. Not actually live. It has to be your legal domicile. which is where you think of as home and where you return when you have no occasion to be anywhere else.
So, Newsome is picking The Phonz to take over Feinstein’s smelly Senate seat …
Whatever. It doesn’t matter which NPC is sitting there, it’s all the same. From Uncle Festerman the vegetable to dead Dianne … they all vote the same for everything.
I wonder if Schumer will change the Senate dress code to let The Phonz wear her leather jacket and jeans in on the floor?
Aaaaayyyy!
I am curious. Why would a lesbian care about abortion? Pregnancy is not something that happens to them unless it is planned.
This isn’t the worst thing that could have happened I think. Feinstein’s passing turned an already complicated situation into an absolute mess with some interesting potential consequences.
At leaast she is not wearing a rhinestone cowboy hat.
He picks a person who represents the D party of today—Red liberal, baby killer in a brown wrapper.
“Laphonza” is the ‘tell” of more to come from the demented Democrats.
Despite comments above, it is irrational and convoluted to allow a governor to cherry-pick anyone from any state to fill a vacated seat. But those are the times we live as “rules and laws” morph to afford advantage.
Really? How is it irrational or convoluted. The legislature has given him the authority to make a temporary appointment. Even you admit he can choose whomever he likes from among his state’s approximately 40 million residents; how is it illogical or convoluted to expand that to residents of any state?
Gee, I don’t know, maybe because California residents should be represented by someone who actually lives there, not picked from whomever the governor wants from anywhere, USA. He represents his state and should honor that charter. Picking someone from outside California [ in this case, a specific type and attitude] is anathema to what a resident would expect.
This move is similar to outside state money being pumped into local elections…the [what I would deem cheatery] practice has morphed so far off original intent of residents and taxpayers voting for their representatives without outside influence that it has become normalized, even expected. This move by Newsom is no different from my cheap seat viewpoint.
The constitution specifically does not require that Californians be represented by someone who lives there. It only requires that when they elect someone, that person must live there on the day they are elected. They are free to move even before their term begins, and to remain resident elsewhere their entire term.
“Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”
It’s a dishonest play.
Newsom isn’t emperor, he represents HIS state and those within it, and that is not a unilateral authority to do whatever suits his objectives. But there I go being rational, because what we have today is anything but…it’s about control. So those stating as much here won’t change the current destructive tragectory as The Dem’s run open loop, with America as we knew it accelerating off the cliff as The Constitution and Bill of Rights and Representative Government gets more and more marginalized to class warfare and “us working for them”, instead of the other way around as prescribed by The Founders who fought for this with their “sacred honor”.
This move (among many others) is not honorable, it’s scumbaggery.
Bullshit. There was never any such intent.
maybe because California residents should be represented by someone who actually lives there
Hence why that exact requirement is written into the Constitution.
The constitution specifically does not require that Californians be represented by someone who lives there.
Milhouse, your pedantry really knows no bounds (like logic) does it?
The constitution is clear, and it specifically says congressmen must reside in their states when elected. It doesn’t say that for the other two criteria. It means what it says.
Plus, it’s a slap in the face to all his state residents with political ambitions. It’s like your company advertising a job opening that constitutes a promotion, then filling it from outside the company. It’s perfectly legal, but tells everybody in the company “the boss doesn’t think you’re good enough.”
how is it illogical or convoluted to expand that to residents of any state?
My word, Milhouse, if you can’t see the obvious answer to your question, then there’s no hope for you.
Let me give just one example of why that pedantry is not only ignorant but obnoxious:
When the Constitution was written, the States were all sovereign entities. It assumes they remain so. Hence the 10th Amendment, among other bits of the Constitution. The requirement for residency (yes, “inhabitant” – given the Founders’ feelings on the matter, I’m confident they would use “legal resident” today) is ensuring that State is actually being represented. It’s much like the requirement that the President be “native born”.
It was part of the DoI in several spots, addressing issues with preventing the people their own representation, like here:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
So, if Senators from NY could be appointed to serve NC, how much could they actually represent the people of that State? How about having all the States appoint/elect their senators from people “inhabiting” NY? Who would the Senate represent then? Would it not be solely the State of NY? How do you think all of the anti-Federalists would have voted on that?
Exactly…not that complicated…except when politicians get involved, they work hard to shade and torture the logic given in plain writing. A wise man once told me:
“Lawyers define the world in their terms then forever argue about the meaning of those terms.”
A resident is plain language to normal thinking rational people…only a lawyer could twist that back onto itself to mean something else.
A person represents the people who elected him. Where he lives is irrelevant. If Californians want to be represented by a ten-year-old who lives in New York, or in Timbuktu, there’s no logical reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to. Democracy would be perfectly served if they were allowed to.
The constitution doesn’t allow them quite that much freedom in electing their representatives. To that extent the constitution is restricting democracy, not expanding it. Well and good; democracy is obviously not the only criterion. The people who ratified the document clearly didn’t want to allow people to be represented by whomever they chose; they imposed certain restrictions, and those are binding. But there is no basis for adding to them. Not only is it unconstitutional to do so, but there’s nothing illogical about not wanting to. Saying that a representative must live in his district, or that a congressman must live in the state throughout his term, would add to the criteria.
“If Californians want to be represented by a ten-year-old who lives in New York, or in Timbuktu, there’s no logical reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to.”
And if they directly elected him, I might even agree, philosophically.
But they didn’t. They elected an elite representative legislator, who delegated to an elite executive governor a power to do this.
I don’t think second-cousin representation twice removed qualifies as moral representation.
My point is that there is nothing illogical or convoluted about allowing a ten-year-old from Timbuktu to represent California. The reason Californians can’t in fact elect one to the senate is not because it would be illogical or convoluted but because the constitution says they can’t. The provision is anti-democratic, but that doesn’t matter; it’s the supreme law of the land. But when the same constitution doesn’t impose that requirement there’s nothing illogical or convoluted about allowing such an appointment.
As for why the constitution didn’t impose such a requirement on appointments, when it did on elections, we can only speculate, but it seems to me that it’s easily explained. We are talking about emergency, stopgap appointments, so it makes sense to relax the requirements somewhat. Especially when travel and communications took so long, it might have made sense to let the governor send a letter by express mail appointing someone he trusted in DC to take care of things until the legislature could elect a replacement, who would then have to travel there. Then the 17th just continued the same system, changing only the voting pool, and giving the legislatures the option of not letting the governor appoint replacements (which they didn’t have before).
I bet Lee and Schiff are angerly seething!
Naw. I think they’re down with the game. Newsom didn’t want to pick favorites, so he picked a temporary seatwarmer, and made her promise to be temporary.
Our cultural rot is mind boggling. People who only a couple of generations ago would have been the absolutely most reprehended, now regularly attain high status positions. I blame television for this. It has provided a constant steam of seductively packaged garbage that has pushed aside mental space formerly employed in acquiring true knowledge, appreciation of beauty and critical thinking skills.
” People who only a couple of generations ago would have been the absolutely most reprehended, now regularly attain high status positions.”
A Russian hustler who was a firm believer in the teachings of Marx seemed to notice no matter how many times the common laborer tried to rebel against the capitalist, it always failed. In 1901-02 he wrote a lengthy pamphlet entitled “What is to be done”. He began to put forth how to take the ideas of Marx from a social economic movement and turn it into a political movement populated with the sort of people needed to keep it alive and growing in political power. First thing, no successful people, no professionals, no teachers or free thinkers. Instead take only outcasts, misfits, perverts and so on because they are low status to virtually no status. Such people will be loyal to the Party because it is their ticket to income, standing among their peers as examples to anyone who wants to join. It worked well and exploded onto the stage at the end of WW1.
That Russian hustler we know as Vladimir I. Lenin.
I always thought The Fonz would make a great senator.
But predictable. He always votes Ayyyyyyyye.
No matter which party you are from, if you live in CA you should be livid by this appointment. Out of 30,000,000 people, Newsome picked one from another state? What does this tell you about their governor and what his concerns are?
I don’t see why a California should be any more upset about this appointment than they would be if she were living in CA. Out of 30M people there are plenty who are even worse and less suitable than this woman. I’d rather be represented by a decent person who lives in another state (if the constitution allowed that) than by a terrible person who lives next door.
Laphonza is a documented RACIST who blames all her problems in life on white people.
WOKE TRASH.
How long will it take her to switch her voter registration to CA so Newsom can appoint her?
It can be done instantly. So can switching her driver’s license and notifying the IRS of the change of address.
“Phony Laphonza,” an apt moniker for this twit.
Can you believe she was earning $950 grand per year, at Emily’s List? That entity is ostensibly a non-profit.
I think people in general have entirely the wrong idea what “non-profit” means.
It doesn’t mean charitable.
All it means is that it doesn’t disburse earnings to stockholders; it spends all of its revenues on maintaining and growing the business.
And salaries are legally a part of maintaining a business.
Compared to corporations, non-profits can be a fast-track to personal wealth for grifters.
Right; I agree with all that and I’m aware of it. Non-profits have admin costs and need to pay a competent staff. The point of my comment is that a near-million dollar annual salary is excessive at a non-profit, even for the CEO. Some non-profits actually do a good job of avoiding administrative bloat and excessively high executive compensation. Emily’s List clearly isn’t one of them.
I should add that there is a fair expectation that C-Suite compensation at a non-profit — whether “charitable” in the classic sense, or, political in nature, as Emily’s List is — is going to be lower than compensation at a for-profit enterprise.