Talk:Gavin Newsom

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2026

ADD/UPDATE - High-speed rail.

Governorship

Second term (2023–present)

Election policy and federal disputes

In September 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice under the second Trump administration filed a lawsuit against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber in the case United States v. Weber, seeking access to the state's full, unredacted voter registration database covering approximately 23 million registered voters. The requested data included sensitive personal information such as full names, residential addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and the last four digits of Social Security numbers. The DOJ argued that the information was necessary to verify voter eligibility, enforce compliance with federal election laws, and investigate potential fraud as part of a broader effort targeting multiple states. California officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom and Secretary Weber, refused to provide the unredacted records, offering redacted versions instead. They argued that releasing such sensitive details would violate federal and state privacy laws, including the Privacy Act and the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, constitute an overreach into state-managed elections, and have a chilling effect on voter registration and participation—particularly among immigrants, political minorities, and working-class communities who might fear misuse of their personal information. On January 15, 2026, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter dismissed the lawsuit in a 33-page ruling, describing the DOJ's demands as "unprecedented and illegal." Carter held that the federal government had not demonstrated sufficient authority under statutes such as the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act to compel the release of unredacted data. He further warned that centralizing such sensitive information federally "would have a chilling effect on voter registration, which would inevitably lead to decreasing voter turnout as voters fear that their information is being used for some inappropriate or unlawful purpose." Newsom's office described the ruling as a victory for voter privacy, election integrity, and resistance to federal overreach, characterizing it as part of a pattern of the Trump administration "losing to California." The ruling was the first in a series of similar DOJ lawsuits against more than 20 mostly Democratic-led states and was expected to influence other cases, though an appeal was anticipated. Vangoh-love (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Vangoh-love, your edit request was denied because your citations were incorrectly formatted. A citation such as <ref name="AP2026" /> only works when you have previously defined which source is called "AP2026". Here you can read more about how to cite sources: Wikipedia:Citing sources. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

== Governorship ==

=== Second term (2023–present) ===

=== Election policy and federal disputes ===

In September 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice under the second Trump administration filed a lawsuit against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber in the case United States v. Weber, seeking access to the state's full, unredacted voter registration database covering approximately 23 million registered voters. The requested data included sensitive personal information such as full names, residential addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and the last four digits of Social Security numbers. The DOJ argued that the information was necessary to verify voter eligibility, enforce compliance with federal election laws, and investigate potential fraud as part of a broader effort targeting multiple states.

California officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom and Secretary Weber, refused to provide the unredacted records, offering redacted versions instead. They argued that releasing such sensitive details would violate federal and state privacy laws, including the Privacy Act and the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, constitute an overreach into state-managed elections, and have a chilling effect on voter registration and participation—particularly among immigrants, political minorities, and working-class communities who might fear misuse of their personal information.

On January 15, 2026, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter dismissed the lawsuit in a 33-page ruling, describing the DOJ's demands as "unprecedented and illegal." Carter held that the federal government had not demonstrated sufficient authority under statutes such as the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act to compel the release of unredacted data. He further warned that centralizing such sensitive information federally "would have a chilling effect on voter registration, which would inevitably lead to decreasing voter turnout as voters fear that their information is being used for some inappropriate or unlawful purpose."

Newsom's office described the ruling as a victory for voter privacy, election integrity, and resistance to federal overreach, characterizing it as part of a pattern of the Trump administration "losing to California." Secretary Weber similarly praised the decision as protecting voter rights against threats to privacy. The ruling was the first in a series of similar DOJ lawsuits against more than 20 mostly Democratic-led states and was expected to influence other cases, though an appeal was anticipated.

== Notes ==

== References ==

• Associated Press (January 15, 2026). "Judge dismisses Trump administration lawsuit seeking detailed voter information from California".
• Los Angeles Times (January 15, 2026). "Trump administration's demands for California's voter rolls, including Social Security numbers, rejected by federal judge".
• The New York Times (January 15, 2026). "Trump Administration Lawsuit Seeking California Voter Data Is Dismissed".
• Reuters (January 16, 2026). "US judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit seeking California voter details".

Vangoh-love (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

References

En Masse Denial of all Pardon Requests Made Prior to His Election

On March 21, 2023, Gov. Newsom's office mailed out letters to those ex-offenders whom had filed gubernatorial pardon requests prior to his election as state governor. The letter reads, in part, "Per instructions from Governor Newsom, all cases from prior administrations have been closed. You may reapply for a pardon..." with following instructions on visiting the Governor's website.

I do not believe this was ever in the news. There is no record of it on the Web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-76316-7 (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Which official portrait?

I think we ought to decide which official portrait is used across pages concerning Gavin Newsom, in order to make things consistent. What do you guys reckon? AsaQuathern (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Newsom portrait 1

Newsom portrait 2

Option A (left) vs Option B (right)

AsaQuathern (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe a cropped version of Option A? CY223 (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hewwo, is this okay? cropped to 3x4, both the American and California's flags are visible. Though I have to say, I really prefer the alternative, the smile is way more proper! Honestly it looks more like Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial portrait in 2004. DelawareMatt (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I prefer the third option. Portrait 1 is not really a portrait, and I think a smiling portrait is not good as an official portrait. Just my two cents! Lova Falk (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes I think consensus has been reached by now for the third cropped version. By the way, I love the two cents pic! AsaQuathern (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Rippey-Tourk Affair

The section on this needs updating. It may be true that in 2018 Ruby made the statement. But. She is on the record stating two things, 1. That the subordinate-superior relationship *is* sufficient to make even an uncoerced sexual relationship a problem (see Vanity Fair 2026) - that is she has changed her mind about the power-dynamics involved. And, in my view more importantly, recalls two time that she woke up in bed with Newsom having no memory of giving consent. That's called rape.(Both of them were abusing alcohol/drugs during those years, apparently.)~2026-39947-37 (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)