California twice tried to keep Donald Trump off its ballot and failed both times. The California vs. Trump ballot access fight played out in two phases: a 2019 state law that would have required presidential candidates to disclose five years of tax returns, and a 2023–2024 push to disqualify him under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause. The first was struck down by the California Supreme Court. The second ended when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states have no power to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. Trump appeared on California’s March 5, 2024, primary ballot.
The Tax Return Law and Why It Failed
In July 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 27, the Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act. The law required candidates for president and California governor to file copies of their federal income tax returns for the five most recent taxable years with the Secretary of State at least 98 days before the primary. Any candidate who refused would be kept off the primary ballot.1California Legislative Information. California Elections Code 6880-6884 – Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act
The target was obvious. Trump had broken with the longstanding norm of releasing tax returns, and SB 27 was built to force the issue.
It did not last. In November 2019, the California Supreme Court unanimously struck the law down in Patterson v. Padilla.2Justia. Patterson v. Padilla, S257302 (2019) All seven justices held that the tax-return requirement conflicted with Article II, Section 5(c) of the California Constitution, which requires the Secretary of State to place all recognized presidential candidates on the primary ballot. That constitutional provision traces back to Proposition 4 in 1972, which guaranteed voters a complete slate of recognized candidates.3Justia. California Constitution Article II Section 5 – Voting, Initiative and Referendum, and Recall The legislature, the court reasoned, could not tack on new eligibility conditions no matter how reasonable they sounded.
SB 27 died before it was applied to any election.
The 14th Amendment Challenge
After January 6, 2021, a different legal theory took hold. Advocacy groups and individual voters argued that Trump was constitutionally disqualified from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars anyone who previously swore an oath to the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding federal or state office.4Congress.gov. Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 – Disqualification from Holding Office
The California filings rested on two claims. First, that Section 3 is self-executing, meaning it operates automatically without separate congressional action. Second, that the Secretary of State has authority to verify constitutional qualifications before certifying a candidate. Proponents drew an analogy to age and citizenship requirements, which state officials routinely confirm.
The weakness in these arguments was practical. No court had ever found Trump engaged in insurrection for purposes of Section 3, and no federal statute set out how a state official should make that determination. Opponents warned that letting an elected secretary of state decide, with no trial and no congressional procedure, amounted to disqualification by executive fiat.
Why the Secretary of State Kept Trump on the Ballot
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber faced direct pressure from inside state government. In December 2023, Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis sent a formal letter urging Weber to “explore every legal option” to remove Trump from the 2024 primary ballot, pointing to the Colorado Supreme Court’s then-recent ruling in Anderson v. Griswold as a model.5Office of the Lieutenant Governor of California. Lt. Governor Kounalakis Calls for Secretary of State Weber to Explore Legal Options to Remove Former President Donald Trump from California’s 2024 Presidential Primary Ballot Separate lawsuits from voters and advocacy organizations sought court orders forcing her hand.
Weber declined. On December 28, 2023, she issued the certified list of candidates for the March 5, 2024, primary with Trump’s name on it.6Secretary of State of the State of California. Certified List of Presidential Candidates and Candidates for Voter-Nominated Offices for the March 5, 2024, Presidential Primary Election Her reasoning: the Secretary of State’s role in candidate certification is ministerial, not judicial. She lacked authority to conduct her own investigation into whether a candidate had engaged in insurrection, and the underlying constitutional questions belonged in the courts.
Trump v. Anderson Settles the Question
On March 4, 2024, one day before California’s primary, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the issue nationally in Trump v. Anderson. The case came from Colorado, where the state supreme court had ordered Trump removed from the ballot under Section 3. All nine justices agreed Colorado’s decision had to be reversed.7Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. Anderson
The per curiam opinion held that individual states lack the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against candidates for federal office. Enforcement authority rests with Congress through its legislative power under Section 5 of the same amendment.8Constitution Annotated. Amdt14.S3.2 Trump v. Anderson and Enforcement of the Insurrection Clause (Disqualification Clause) Letting each state decide independently whether a presidential candidate engaged in insurrection, the Court reasoned, would produce a “chaotic state-by-state patchwork” in which a candidate might be eligible in one state and barred in another. That result would contradict the 14th Amendment’s purpose of expanding federal authority over state autonomy.
The ruling ended every pending state-level disqualification effort, including the ones aimed at California. Weber’s December decision stood.
What Was Not Decided
Although all nine justices agreed Colorado was wrong, they split on how far the opinion should reach. The per curiam majority went past the narrow question and declared that only congressional legislation under Section 5 can enforce the insurrection clause against federal candidates.
Justice Barrett wrote separately that the simple principle “States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates” was enough to decide the case, and the Court should have stopped there. She urged against “amplify[ing] disagreement with stridency” during an election year.7Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. Anderson Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concurred only in the result, arguing the majority had reached out to answer questions nobody asked, including whether courts themselves could ever enforce Section 3. They called the broader reasoning “as inadequately supported as [it is] gratuitous.”
The Enforcement Gap That Remains
Trump v. Anderson placed enforcement responsibility on Congress, and Congress has not acted. No federal statute currently sets out a procedure for determining whether a candidate or officeholder has engaged in insurrection for Section 3 purposes. The historical precedent, the Enforcement Act of 1870, dates to Reconstruction and has not been updated.9Constitution Annotated. Overview of the Insurrection Clause (Disqualification Clause)
Section 3 does contain a release valve: Congress can remove a disqualification by a two-thirds vote in each chamber. But neither the process for imposing one nor the evidentiary standard for “engaged in insurrection” has ever been defined by federal legislation. For the time being, Section 3 is a constitutional provision without a working enforcement mechanism, and the practical consequence for ballot access questions is that states cannot invoke it against presidential candidates and Congress has not built the machinery to do so itself.