OKs

SACRAMENTO — Legislation to move the California presidential primary from early June to early March, in an effort to make the state a more important player in presidential politics, passed the Assembly on Wednesday.

The bill was sent to the Senate on a 43-22 vote. If approved there, it will go to Gov. Pete Wilson, who has said he favors moving up the primary date.

A March date would make California the first large-population state to hold a presidential primary or a caucus.

Assemblyman Jim Costa (D-Fresno), the measure’s author, said Californians have been “no more than onlookers” as presidential candidates have been selected in recent years. Costa said the California vote last affected the outcome of a Democratic primary in 1972, while the state has not played a major role in a Republican selection since the 1964 contest between Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller.

Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) said California “has been treated like a 24-hour ATM machine,” with candidates raising large amounts of money in this state but spending it on primaries and caucuses elsewhere.

Assemblyman Pat Nolan (R-Glendale) denounced the proposal as an “expensive boondoggle to allow people in this building to become kingmakers.” Nolan also said moving up the primary date would make it difficult for the Legislature or the courts to arrive at a reapportionment plan well in advance of the primary.

But Costa said a March primary would cost no more than an election in June and that “modern computers can draw reapportionment lines quickly.”

Forty Democrats were joined by three Republicans–Assemblymen Gerald N. Felando of San Pedro, David G. Kelley of Hemet and Charles W. Quackenbush of Saratoga–in supporting the bill. All 22 no votes were cast by Republicans.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to suspend its construction of a $400 million ballroom where it demolished the East Wing of the White House, barring construction work from proceeding without congressional approval.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington granted a preservationist group’s request for a preliminary injunction that temporarily halts President Trump’s White House ballroom project.

Leon, who was nominated to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush, concluded that the National Trust for Historic Preservation is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims because “no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”

“The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” the judge wrote.

Leon suspended enforcement of his order for 14 days, acknowledging that the case “raises novel and weighty issues, that halting an ongoing construction project “may raise logistical issues.” He also recognized that the administration is likely to appeal his decision.

The judge ruled that any construction work that’s necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House is exempt from the scope of the injunction. Leon said he reviewed material that the government privately submitted to him before concluding that halting construction wouldn’t jeopardize national security.

Trump, in a social media post, criticized the trust for suing him over a project that he said is being built at no cost to taxpayers. “Doesn’t make much sense, does it?” he wrote.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

The preservationists sued to obtain an order pausing the ballroom project until it undergoes multiple independent reviews and receives congressional approval.

The White House announced the ballroom project over the summer. By late October, Trump had demolished the East Wing to make way for a ballroom that he said would fit 999 people. The White House said private donations, including from Trump himself, would pay for the planned construction of a 90,000-square-foot ballroom.

Trump proceeded with the project before seeking input from a pair of federal review panels, the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts. Trump has stocked both commissions with allies.

On Feb. 26, Leon rejected the preservationist group’s initial bid to temporarily halt the ballroom’s construction. He said the privately funded group had based its challenge on a “ragtag group” of legal theories and would have a better chance of success if it amended the lawsuit, which it did.

The administration has said above-ground construction on the ballroom would begin in April.

“We are two weeks away,” plaintiffs’ attorney Thaddeus Heuer said during a March 17 hearing. “The imminence is now imminent.”

During the hearing, Leon sounded skeptical of what he referred to as the government’s “shifting theories and shifting dynamics” for its arguments in the case.

“I don’t think it’s a new theory,” Justice Department attorney Jacob Roth told the judge.

Leon expressed frustration at Roth’s attempts to equate the massive ballroom project with relatively modest construction work at the White House under previous administrations.

“This is an iconic symbol of this nation,” the judge said.

The administration argued that other presidents didn’t need congressional approval for previous White House renovation projects, large and small.

“Many of those projects were highly controversial in their time yet have since become accepted — even beloved — parts of the White House,” government attorneys wrote.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.