Politics
Potential risk of a constitutional convention sets stage for a fight between Newsom and a fellow Democrat
Last summer, Gov. Gavin Newsom made a splashy announcement on a nationally televised morning show.
As millions of Americans tuned in over their breakfast and coffee, California’s Democratic governor said he was fed up with Congress’ inability to pass gun safety laws and was taking matters into his own hands, calling for a new constitutional amendment to restrict firearms.
The proposal was more of a swashbuckling play for attention than a plan with any rational chance of success. The last — and only — time the states gathered for a constitutional convention was in 1787, when George Washington had yet to be elected as the United States’ first president.
Still, California’s Democratic lawmakers overwhelmingly approved Newsom’s proposal, and formally called for a convention to amend the Constitution to ban the sale of assault weapons, require universal background checks on gun purchases and raise the minimum age to buy a firearm from 18 to 21.
But a handful of Democrats did not go along with the plan. A progressive senator from San Francisco was the most vocal critic, arguing that a constitutional convention could wind up empowering a conservative agenda. And now, with the country in flux and a former president known for defying the laws of political gravity and pulverizing long-standing norms soon to be sworn back into office, he’s launched a new push to blunt Newsom’s flashy maneuver and rescind California’s call to amend the Constitution.
“There is no way that I want California to accidentally help these extremists trigger a constitutional convention where they, you know, rewrite the Constitution to restrict voting rights, to eliminate reproductive health access and so forth,” said Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).
Come January, Republicans will control the White House and both chambers of Congress. The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority is likely to remain in place for years to come.
To Wiener and some other Democrats, the once-improbable prospect of another constitutional convention suddenly seems a bit more credible under a second Trump term.
Calling another constitutional convention would require the approval of 34 of the 50 states. But many, like California, have existing calls on the books. Accounts differ on how many states have already called for a constitutional convention, but at least one tally puts the count above the requisite 34.
Wiener’s proposal, which was first reported by the New York Times, would nullify and supersede all constitutional convention applications previously put forth by the Legislature.
Wiener, like Newsom, is an ambitious and media-savvy politician. A frequent Fox News bête noire, he routinely carries legislation that makes headlines and pushes Democrats from the left. Wiener has made no secret of his desire for a congressional seat — specifically the one long occupied by Democratic powerbroker and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whenever she retires.
Wiener is far from the only Democratic politician to fear the possibility of a conservative-led constitutional convention on the horizon. Several other states, including New Jersey and Illinois, have similarly rescinded their open calls for a constitutional convention in recent years.
“I think it’s a more present danger than many appreciate. There has been a movement by fringe conservatives for many, many years now to create a constitutional convention. And those folks are closer to power in Washington, D.C., than ever before,” said Jonathan Mehta Stein, executive director of the nonpartisan democracy advocacy group California Common Cause.
Mehta Stein described the possibility of such a convention as a “Pandora’s box for our Constitution” that would create “the opportunity for forces we don’t even know to overhaul our democratic institutions and our basic human rights.”
The governor’s office said his position had not changed regarding his support for a new constitutional amendment and declined to comment further.
Wiener’s decision to bring the resolution forward is a bit of a finger in the eye to the governor, who has vetoed some of Wiener’s most high-profile bills, including one to regulate artificial intelligence and another to decriminalize psychedelic mushrooms.
Newsom could try to will Wiener’s resolution toward a soundless death by leaning on lawmakers to bury it without a vote. Representatives for Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) both declined to say whether the Democratic legislative leaders support Wiener’s resolution.
Republican leaders were also noncommittal, though Wiener may wind up with their support. Senate GOP Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee) said he was reviewing Wiener’s resolution and assessing the benefits and potential consequences of a constitutional convention. Like Wiener, both Jones and Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) voted against Newsom’s proposal last year.
“This scheme was nothing but a publicity stunt from the start,” said Gallagher, who is leaning toward supporting Wiener’s repeal effort. “If repealing it will get Newsom to focus on California’s problems instead of chasing the national limelight, that sounds like a good thing.”
The fight ahead could also be a boon for Wiener, further raising his public profile ahead of a potential congressional campaign. That said, it will also test his political might, particularly if the governor chooses to wage a behind-the-scenes campaign against the proposal.
At issue, in part, is the question of how a constitutional convention would actually play out on the ground, and whether it could be convened around a specific topic, such as gun safety, as Newsom has insisted.
The instructions for how the states would proceed after calling a constitutional convention are laid out in Article V of the Constitution, a 143-word sentence that includes virtually no instructions for specific logistics.
Newsom’s office has maintained that his original resolution includes provisions rendering the call void if a constitutional convention is convened on a topic other than gun control.
But legal experts have pushed back on the idea that a constitutional convention could be convened around a single topic.
“The problem is, since there’s never been a constitutional convention under Article V, no one knows” whether it can be limited to one topic, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law School and a leading constitutional law scholar. “People have said you can do it and people have said you can’t do it. The only honest answer anybody can give you is there’s no way to know, since it’s never happened.”
Chemerinsky, who characterized Newsom’s call for a constitutional convention on gun safety as misguided, said he agreed with Wiener and thought it was plausible that a constitutional convention could actually happen.
“There’s certainly a risk that it could be a very ideologically driven group of people who would propose quite extreme changes to the Constitution,” Chemerinsky said.
new video loaded: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats
By Shawn Paik
April 22, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Sparks flew on Capitol Hill as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., accused Federal Reserve nominee Kevin Warsh of being a potential “sock puppet” for President Donald Trump.
Warsh, tapped by Trump in January to lead the Federal Reserve, faced a two-and-a-half-hour confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.
If confirmed, he would take the helm of the world’s most powerful central bank, shaping interest rates, borrowing costs and the financial outlook for millions of American households for the next four years.
WHO IS KEVIN WARSH, TRUMP’S PICK TO SUCCEED JEROME POWELL AS FED CHAIR?
Kevin Warsh, nominee for chairman of the Federal Reserve, listens to ranking member Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., make an opening statement during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
In her opening remarks, Warren sharply criticized Warsh’s record and questioned his independence, arguing he is “uniquely ill-suited for the job as Fed chair” and warning he could give Trump influence over the central bank.
She accused Warsh of enabling Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis, which fell during his tenure as a Federal Reserve governor when he served from 2006 to 2011.
“In our meeting last week, we discussed the 2008 financial crash, where 8 million people lost their jobs, 10 million people lost their homes and millions more lost their life savings,” Warren said. “Giant banks, however, got hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts… and he said to me that he has no regrets about anything he did.”
She added that Warsh “worked tirelessly to arrange multibillion-dollar bailouts” for Wall Street CEOs, with nothing for American families.
The hearing grew more tense as Warren pivoted to ethics concerns, pressing Warsh over his undisclosed financial holdings and questioning him over links to business dealings connected to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The two spoke over each other and raised their voices in a heated exchange on Capitol Hill.
WARSH’S $226 MILLION FORTUNE UNDER SCRUTINY AS FED NOMINEE FACES SENATE CONFIRMATION
Sen. Elizabeth Warren: The Fed has been plagued by deeply disturbing ethics scandals in recent years. It’s critical that the next chair have no financial conflicts — none. You have more than $100 million in investments that you have refused to disclose. So let me ask: do the Juggernaut Fund or THSDFS LLC invest in companies affiliated with President Trump or his family, companies tied to money laundering, Chinese-controlled firms, or financing vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein?
Kevin Warsh: Senator, I’ve worked closely with the Office of Government Ethics and agreed to divest all of my financial assets.
Warren: Could you answer my question, please? You have more than $100 million in undisclosed assets. Are any of those investments tied to the entities I just mentioned? It’s a yes-or-no question.
Warsh: I have worked tirelessly with ethics officials and agreed to sell all of my assets before taking the oath of office.
Warren: Are you refusing to tell us if you have investments in vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein? You just won’t say?
Warsh: What I’m telling you is those assets will be sold if I’m confirmed.
Warren: Will you disclose how you plan to divest these assets? The public might question your motives if, for example, someone who profits from predicting Fed policy cuts you a $100 million check as you take office.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren questions Kevin Warsh during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Warsh: I’ve reached a full agreement with the Office of Government Ethics and will divest those assets before taking the oath.
Warren: I’m asking a very straightforward question. Will you disclose how you divest those assets?
Warsh: As I’ve said, I’ve worked with ethics officials.
Warren: I’ll take that as a no.
In a separate exchange, Warren invoked Trump’s past statements about the Fed and challenged Warsh to prove his independence in real time.
She insisted that Warsh answer whether he believes Trump won the 2020 presidential election and if he would name policies of the president with which he disagrees. The hopeful future Fed chair dodged the question and said he would remain apolitical, if confirmed.
THE ONE LINE IN WARSH’S TESTIMONY SIGNALING A BREAK FROM THE FED’S STATUS QUO
Warren: Donald Trump has made clear he does not want an independent Fed. He has said, “Anybody that disagrees with me will never be Fed chairman.” He’s also said interest rates will drop “when Kevin gets in.” Let’s check out your independence and your courage. We’ll start easy. Mr. Warsh, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?
Warsh: Senator, we should keep politics out of the Federal Reserve.
Warren: I’m asking a factual question.
Warsh: This body certified the election.
Warren: That’s not what I asked. Did Donald Trump lose in 2020?
Warsh: The Fed should stay out of politics.
Warren: In our meeting, you said you’re a “tough guy” who can stand up to President Trump. So name one aspect of his economic agenda you disagree with.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Kevin Warsh listens to a question during a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Warsh: That’s not something I’m prepared to do. The Fed should stay in its lane.
Warren: Just one place where you disagree.
Warsh: I do have one disagreement — he said I looked like I was out of central casting. I think I’d look older and grayer.
Warren: That’s adorable. But we need a Fed chair who is independent. If you can’t answer these questions, you don’t have the courage or the independence.
On March 28, a sunny Saturday in southwestern Utah, Jack Hoopes and his wife, Lorna, brought their homemade signs to the local “No Kings” rally.
The couple joined a crowd of 1,500 or so marching through the main picnic area of a park in downtown St. George. Their signs — cut-out words on a black background — chided lawmakers for failing to stand up to President Trump and urged America to “make lying wrong again.”
After about an hour, the two were ready to go home. They got in their silver Volvo SUV, but before pulling away, Jack Hoopes decided to swing past the demonstration, which was still going strong. He tooted his horn, twice, in a show of solidarity.
That’s when things took a curious turn.
A police officer parked in the middle of the street warned Hoopes not to honk; at least that’s what he thinks the officer said as Hoopes drove past the chanting crowd. When he spotted two familiar faces, Hoopes hit the horn a third time — a friendly, howdy sort of honk. “It wasn’t like I was being obnoxious,” he said, “or laying on the horn.”
Hoopes turned a corner and the cop, lights flashing, pulled him over. He asked Hoopes for his license and registration. He returned a few moments later. A passing car sounded its horn. “Are you going to stop him, too?” Hoopes asked.
That did not sit well. The officer said he’d planned to let Hoopes off with a warning. Instead, he charged the 71-year-old retired potato farmer with violating Utah’s law on horns and warning devices. He issued a citation, with a fine punishable up to $50.
Hoopes — a law school graduate and prosecutor in the days before he took up potato farming — is fighting back, even though he estimates the legal skirmishing could cost him considerably more than the maximum fine. The ticket might have resulted from pique on the officer’s part. But Hoopes doesn’t think so. He sees politics at play.
“I’ve beeped my horn for [the pro-law enforcement] Back the Blue. I’ve beeped my horn for Black Lives Matter,” Hoopes said. “I’ve seen a lot of people honk for Trump and for MAGA.”
He’s also seen plenty of times when people honked their horns to celebrate high school championships and the like.
But Hoopes has never heard of anyone being pulled over, much less ticketed, for excessive or unlawful honking. “I think it’s freedom of expression,” he said.
Or should be.
Jack and Lorna Hoopes made their own protest signs to bring to the “No Kings” rally in St. George, Utah.
(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)
St. George is a fast-growing community of about 100,000 residents set amid the jagged red-rock peaks of the Mojave Desert. It’s a jumping-off point for Zion National Park, about 40 miles east, and a mecca for golf, hiking and mountain-bike riding.
It’s also Trump Country.
Washington County, where St. George is located, gave Trump 75% of its vote in 2024, with Kamala Harris winning a scant 23%. That emphatic showing compares with Trump’s 59% performance statewide.
St. George is where Hoopes and his wife live most of the time. When summer and its 100-degree temperatures hit, they retreat to southeast Idaho. The couple get along well with their neighbors in both places, Hoopes said, even though they’re Democrats living in ruby-red country. It’s not as though they just tolerate folks, or hold their noses to get by.
“Most of my friends are conservative,” Hoopes said. “Some of the Trump people are very good people. We just have a difference of opinion where our country is going.”
He was speaking from a hotel parking lot in Arizona near Lake Havasu while embarked on an annual motorcycle ride through the Southwest: four days, a dozen riders, 1,200 miles. Most of his companions are Trump supporters, Hoopes said, and, just like back home, everyone gets on fine.
“Right?” he called out.
“No!” a voice hollered back.
Actually, Hoopes joked, his charitable road mates let him ride along because they consider him handicapped — his disability being his political ideology.
Hoopes is not exactly a hellion. In 2014, he and his wife traveled to Africa to participate in humanitarian work and promote sustainable agriculture in Kenya and Uganda. In 2020, they worked as Red Cross volunteers helping wildfire victims in Northern California.
Virtually his entire life has been spent on the right side of the law, though Hoopes allowed as how he has racked up a few speeding tickets over the years. (His career as a prosecutor lasted four years and involved three murder cases in the first 12 months before he left the legal profession behind and took up farming.)
He’s never had any problems with the police in St. George. “They seem to be decent,” Hoopes said.
A department spokesperson, Tiffany Mitchell, said illicit honking is not a widespread problem in the placid, retiree-heavy community, but there are some who have been cited for violations. She denied any political motivation in Hoopes’ case.
“He must’ve felt justified,” Mitchell said of the officer who issued the citation. “I can’t imagine that politics had anything to do with it.”
And yes, she said, honking a horn can be a political statement protected by the 1st Amendment. “But, just like anything else, it can turn criminal,” Mitchell said, and apparently that’s how the officer felt on March 28 “and that’s the direction he took it.”
The matter now rests before a judge, residing in a legal system that has lately been tested and twisted in remarkable ways.
Jack Hoopes’ case is now before a judge in St. George, Utah.
(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)
As he left an initial hearing earlier this month, Hoopes said his phone pinged with a fresh headline out of Washington. Trump’s Justice Department, it was reported, was asking a federal appeals court to throw out the convictions of 12 people found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
“We have a president that pardons people that broke into the Capitol and defecated” in the hallways and congressional offices, Hoopes said. “Police officers died because of it, and yet I get picked up for honking my horn?”
Hoopes’ next court appearance, a pretrial conference, is set for July 15.
-
Detroit, MI23 minutes agoHow these Detroit farmers are fighting for neighborhood food security
-
San Francisco, CA35 minutes agoS.F. hospital stabbing analysis confirms Mission Local reporting on security lapses
-
Dallas, TX41 minutes agoIt’s a big week for restaurant openings and closings in Dallas
-
Miami, FL47 minutes agoCain, Kushner launch South Florida JV with plans for Edgewater rental tower
-
Boston, MA53 minutes agoMBTA Green Line trains out from Kenmore to Boston College on B branch through April 30
-
Denver, CO59 minutes agoNuggets vs. Timberwolves | 3 keys to a Denver win in Game 3
-
Seattle, WA1 hour agoThe Honorable Brandon Lee Gowton Picks for Seattle at #32 | Field Gulls
-
San Diego, CA1 hour agoPerson struck, killed by train in Encinitas