Harris-Newsom Ticket: A Constitutional Challenge According to the 12th Amendment

In an unexpected development, President Joe Biden, aged 81, announced on Sunday that he would not pursue re-election. This decision followed persistent pressure from his inner circle, who expressed concerns about his age and health potentially affecting his chances against former President Donald J. Trump. With Biden stepping aside, Vice President Kamala Harris declared her intention to seek the Democratic nomination for President. Biden’s endorsement of Harris has garnered significant support from many within the party. However, the idea of a Harris-Newsom ticket, with California Governor Gavin Newsom as her running mate, has sparked considerable debate. Despite the political allure of such a pairing, a crucial constitutional barrier exists in the 12th Amendment.

Grasping the 12th Amendment

Ratified in 1804, the 12th Amendment refined the process for electing the President and Vice President of the United States. A key provision in this Amendment addresses the issue of electors from the same state as the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The 12th Amendment states:

“The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.”

This clause means that if both the presidential and vice-presidential candidates are from the same state, the electors from that state cannot cast votes for both of them. Losing crucial electoral votes could undermine their chances of winning the election.

Harris and Newsom: The California Challenge

Both Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Gavin Newsom are from California. While they each have solid political profiles and substantial support within the state, their shared residency poses a significant constitutional issue. Under the 12th Amendment, the electors from California could not vote for Harris as President and Newsom as Vice President. Given California’s substantial electoral votes, this could severely disadvantage their ticket, making it a non-viable option.

The Importance of Electoral Strategy

The primary goal of any presidential campaign is to secure the necessary 270 electoral votes to win the election. In recent elections, California has contributed 55 electoral votes, the most significant number of any state. Losing these votes due to a constitutional technicality would be a critical blow to any campaign. Therefore, while a Harris-Newsom ticket might have significant appeal within the Democratic Party, the constitutional constraints make it an impractical choice.

Possible Alternatives

Given the constraints posed by the 12th Amendment, Harris must consider running mates from states other than California. Potential alternatives include politicians bringing regional balance and diverse perspectives to the ticket, strengthening the campaign’s appeal across different states. Some possible candidates could be:

• Senator Cory Booker from New Jersey: A prominent African American politician with a strong record on civil rights and social justice.
• Mayor Pete Buttigieg from Indiana: The current Secretary of Transportation, Buttigieg has national recognition and could help appeal to Midwestern voters.
• Governor Gretchen Whitmer from Michigan: A strong female leader from a key swing state, Whitmer could help secure critical votes in the Rust Belt.

BNCL’s Perspective

At Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry, and Lacy (BNCL), our focus on civil rights litigation often brings us into close contact with the implications of constitutional law. The 12th Amendment’s restrictions clearly illustrate how legal frameworks shape political strategy. Our firm specializes in police misconduct, racial and sexual discrimination, and mental health crises and understands the importance of strategic legal planning in achieving desired outcomes through a solid understanding of constitutional law.

Conclusion

While the notion of a Harris-Newsom ticket might seem compelling at first glance, the 12th Amendment presents an insurmountable obstacle that cannot be ignored. The constitutional requirement that electors cannot vote for both candidates if they are from the same state makes this ticket an impractical choice. As Vice President Harris embarks on her presidential campaign, she must select a running mate who complements her platform and adheres to constitutional constraints, ensuring a robust and legally sound path to the White House.

By understanding these legal nuances, both political strategists and voters can better navigate the complexities of the electoral process, ensuring that every vote counts in the pursuit of adequate and equitable leadership for our nation.