Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom banning state-funded travel to all these states could be awkward in 2024

Last month, in an article published at The Hill, Douglas MacKinnon, who was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, proposed a “game plan” to help the Democrats win the presidency in 2024 by making Gavin Newsom president now.

According to MacKinnon, the plan to put Newsom in the White House without a vote is quite simple:

If the answer is “yes,” the “solution” is really not complicated at all. In one scenario, Biden could ask Harris to resign and replace her with Newsom, who then becomes the heir apparent for 2024. Or Biden could replace Harris with Newsom and then resign himself, making Newsom the president before 2024 and arming him with the full force of the Oval Office.

However events unfold, it’s clear that Newsom has his sights set on the White House. Heck, the prog utopian even visited the White House this past summer while President Biden was out of the country. Maybe Newsom was measuring for curtains or something. Newsom has also visited the border, which is something Biden isn’t going to do anytime soon.

If Newsom does end up running for the Dem nomination at some point, he’ll have to campaign in many states that he considers offensive to lefty sensibilities. There are now over 20 states that Newsom has forbidden from state-funded travel:

This past April, Georgia passed legislation that allows the barring of transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports. This was a devastating blow for transgender people across the country, as yet another state made it clear that they would be considered different.

In response, California banned all state-funded travel to Georgia. With the addition of Georgia, 23 states are now subject to AB 1887, the 2016 California statute that prohibits state-sponsored travel to states with laws that discriminate against L.G.B.T.Q. people. In addition to preventing any public employee from being required to travel there, the law prohibits approving any “request for state-funded or state-sponsored travel.” This includes, with some exceptions, anyone who works for or receives funding from a public university.

It’s easy to see why California leaders might think a law like AB 1887 is needed. They don’t want residents to be forced to travel for work to states that discriminate against them. They also feel that it’s California’s policy to “promote fairness and equality and to combat discrimination,” and they don’t want to reward states with discriminatory laws through economic activity.

Byron York calls it a “slow-motion secession”: