Butch Ware

Foreign policy is federal, but a California governor can still direct CalPERS and CalSTRS, the state pension funds that hold hundreds of billions in assets, to divest from companies profiting from the occupation, and can direct the state's trade office, can use the bully pulpit, and can deny state contracts to companies breaking international human-rights law.

US military aid to Israel is a federal decision made by Congress and the President, so a governor cannot end it, and California also has anti-BDS laws, meaning Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions laws, on the books that limit certain specific state actions against Israel, and Ware's platform does not detail a specific CalPERS or CalSTRS divestment plank.

For Arab, Palestinian and Muslim families in SELA, a public voice from California's governor in favor of a ceasefire would be symbolically meaningful, and CalPERS or CalSTRS divestment would carry material market impact. For Jewish communities the response is not uniform, since progressive Jews and Jews critical of Israel would support it while others would oppose it, and Ware's platform does not explicitly alienate the Jewish community although it is direct in its critique.

A governor could sign AB 1900, the CalCare bill, if the Legislature passes it, could seek federal waivers under sections 1332 and 1115, could declare a public-health emergency, and could direct DHCS to expand Medi-Cal.

California single-payer faces the same obstacles for Ware that it faces for any candidate, meaning federal ERISA preemption, the need for a two-thirds vote or a ballot measure, and an annual cost of $300B-$400B, and while AB 1400 died in 2022, AB 1900 is pending but has not passed.

For mixed-status families it would mean coverage regardless of immigration status, and for families with parents struggling with addiction or mental health, the explicit integration of those services into CalCare is notable, because most single-payer proposals do not name them explicitly, and all of this matters for SELA, where private coverage is scarce and Medi-Cal has gaps.

A governor could sign legislation taxing vacant corporate properties, could direct HCD to set up a state social-housing authority, could use state land, and could seek legislative authorization to issue bonds for acquisition.

Forcing a sale through taxation requires a solid legal basis, or else it faces litigation under the Takings Clause, and acquisition financing at the scale of 1.2 million units runs into the tens of billions, while "operated at cost" requires administrative infrastructure that the state does not currently have.

SELA has vacant units in buildings owned by real-estate corporations and private-equity firms, so conversion to at-cost social housing would mean rent at 25% of income, which is a material change for working families currently paying 40 to 50%, and the presence of a public market competing with the private one would lower private rents too.

A governor could sign legislation canceling state debt, could negotiate with the UC Regents and CSU Trustees, whose appointments a governor partly controls, on tuition, and could propose budgets that replace tuition revenue with state funding.

The UC Regents are constitutionally autonomous, so the governor appoints them but does not control them, and community college and CSU tuition is more reachable but still requires the budget to replace the lost revenue, while federal student debt, which is the majority of it, cannot be canceled at the state level.

SELA students at East LA College, ELAC, LA Trade-Tech and other local community colleges would have free education, and for families with kids at CSU LA, CSUN or CSU Long Beach it would mean roughly $7,000 a year per student in tuition eliminated, while canceling state student debt would free up monthly income for young professionals.

A governor could declare a climate emergency by executive order, which has no clear legal precedent but is plausible, could direct CalGEM to stop issuing new oil and gas well permits, could appoint CARB and CPUC members with a climate commitment, and could use the budget for transition jobs.

Existing oil and gas wells are contracts that cannot be unilaterally voided, federal preemption limits some regulation, and FERC retains jurisdiction over wholesale energy, while Ware's platform does not detail a specific "just transition" mechanism for workers currently in fossil-fuel jobs.

SELA sits next to the Wilmington industrial corridor, the ports of LA and Long Beach, refineries and heavy freight warehouses, and its air pollution is among the worst in the state, so a brake on new well permits and tougher enforcement against corporate polluters would be material for childhood asthma, cancer and respiratory illness in the community.

He was removed from the ballot on March 16, his state court challenge was rejected on March 26, and his federal lawsuit, Ware v. Weber, Case 2:26-cv-01643 WBS SCR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, argues a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. On May 11, 2026 Senior District Judge William B. Shubb denied the campaign's emergency motion to restore Ware to the June ballot, a four-page order that turned only on timing, since vote-by-mail ballots were already in circulation, and that did not rule on whether SB 27 is constitutional, so the main case continues, and because he is a write-in it requires every voter to write his exact name, BUTCH WARE.

The extra effort required to write his name on the ballot is a real barrier, because voters with low literacy, voters who vote by mail and skim the instructions, and voters who are in a hurry may not complete the write-in correctly, and for SELA, where English is not always the primary language, English write-in instructions add another layer of difficulty.

The 10-minute window to fix deficiencies after contradictory notices raises questionable due process, and SB 27 has been criticized as a tool to exclude non-Democratic candidates, and although the May 11 ruling means Ware will not be restored to the June ballot, the court left the constitutional question open, so if Ware ultimately wins the federal suit it will set a precedent on third-party ballot access for future California elections.

Ware has called for a permanent ceasefire, an end to US military aid to Israel, Palestinian self-determination and the right of return, and he hosted a "From Grassroots to Gaza" panel in October 2025, and he has been interviewed by Democracy Now, Palestine Chronicle and Black Agenda Report on these positions, while critical coverage from Jewish Insider (October 2024) also exists, although Ware's campaign disputes that characterization.

For Jewish families in SELA, especially Sephardic and Mizrahi families, Ware's position can be polarizing, while for Arab, Palestinian and Muslim families his position is a relief after years of Democratic candidates dodging the topic, and the political question is whether a governor can hold both communities, since the historical answer is that most candidates dodge it rather than articulate a position.

Ware is a convert to Islam and a scholar of Islamic history, so his statements carry intellectual and community context that goes beyond electoral politics, which means they are not casual statements, and the distinction between critique of the Israeli state and antisemitism is real and is accepted by many progressive Jewish scholars. But the line between "from the river to the sea" as self-determination and "from the river to the sea" as elimination is disputed in good faith on both sides.

Write-in campaigns for major statewide office in California have not won in recent history, and the Stein-Ware ticket in 2024 received 0.56% nationally, while Ware as a write-in polls well below the detection threshold in statewide polls, and although the federal court denied his emergency motion on May 11, 2026, the underlying federal lawsuit remains active.

For SELA voters who identify with the Green and anti-imperialist platform but do not want to "waste" their vote, the decision is real, and the argument is similar to Robinson's, because if the Green vote is 0.1% the message does not land, while if it is 2 to 5% it does, and the difference with Robinson is that Ware has to be written in, which lowers the ceiling.

The federal case is historic, because regardless of the June outcome, the decision on SB 27 will have effects on future third-party elections in California, and the Green platform has moved the Democratic debate on climate since Nader in 2000. For left voters who are not drawn to the PSL or PFP through the Marxist-Leninist association, Ware is the Green alternative, more academic, more focused on Palestine, and more focused on climate.