As California’s Congressional map faces rezoning, Governor Gavin Newsom issued a stark warning about the implications for democracy.
This isn’t the first time he’s invoked such language. During President Trump’s deployment of troops to address unrest in Los Angeles, Newsom expressed that “democracy is being attacked right in front of our eyes.”
Newsom is actively involved in a campaign aimed at countering what he calls “authoritarian leaders who succumb to hell in gaining power.”
In his view, this “threat to democracy” narrative seems to be growing more prescient, perhaps rather than merely worn out.
For instance, public sentiment shows that Americans oppose the push for electric vehicles by a substantial margin. Yet, a bipartisan majority in Congress moved to overturn California’s electric vehicle order, which seems less like a celebration of democracy and more about sidelining public opinion.
This month, my organization intervened in Northern California, challenging Newsom’s actions and asserting that his claims regarding democracy lack validity.
The implications of Newsom’s rules extend beyond the immediate interests of California drivers. With national political ambitions for 2028, Newsom’s electric vehicle mandate has repercussions that reach far beyond the state itself.
Starting in 2035, the mandate requires that all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in California be zero-emission. This indicates a complete phase-out of traditional vehicles.
Thanks to the provisions in the Clean Air Act, California can request the EPA to allow it to implement stricter emissions standards than those set at the federal level.
Last December, the Biden administration acknowledged California’s push, with the EPA approving its request for the mandate, which could affect sales in eleven additional states.
If allowed to proceed, this would effectively eliminate the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles in approximately 30% of the U.S. market within a decade.
Fortunately, a bipartisan coalition in Congress has shown resistance, passing resolutions to block these exemptions using the Congressional Review Act, which allows for this reversal through a streamlined legislative process that requires just a simple majority.
The Supreme Court has previously commented on this process, emphasizing that Congress has the authority to enact measures that counter such regulations in California.
However, following Trump’s signature in June, legal challenges emerged from progressive states that had enacted similar measures, arguing that Congress should adhere to the 60-vote threshold often required to overcome filibusters.
This raises fundamental questions about how Congress interprets and applies the Congressional Review Act, as well as the underlying constitutional authority to utilize these legislative procedures.
The Review Act distinctly prevents judicial review of the entire process. If Newsom were truly committed to the principles of democracy he claims to uphold, he would recognize this reality.
In discussions about electric vehicles, it seems common sense aligns more with everyday Americans than extreme climate agendas. The rhetoric surrounding judicial pushback might resonate within activist circles, but it risks alienating average workers.
Democrats appear to be distancing themselves from these realities, particularly as approval ratings hit historic lows, suggesting they are in dire need of guidance to navigate their challenges.
Before rallying behind Newsom, Democrats would do well to reconsider. His policies seem misguided, his energy erratic, and his boasts about “democracy” don’t hold up under constitutional scrutiny.
