Why there are 61 names on your ballot for governor – including Barack Obama
California's 2026 gubernatorial primary features an unusually high 61 candidates on the ballot, overwhelming voters with choices and raising concerns about ballot clarity. Candidates can qualify by paying a $4,918.58 fee or submitting 6,000 valid signatures, with minimal additional barriers. Notable names include familiar politicians and lesser-known figures like Barack D. Obama Shaw, whose name resembles that of the former U.S. president.
- ▪California’s June 2, 2026, jungle primary will narrow 61 gubernatorial candidates to the top two vote-getters for the November runoff.
- ▪Candidates must pay a $4,918.58 filing fee or submit 6,000 valid signatures to qualify, along with 65 to 100 nomination signatures from registered California voters.
- ▪Despite dropping out, Eric Swalwell and Betty Yee remain on the ballot because the deadline to remove names had passed.
- ▪Barack D. Obama Shaw, a lesser-known candidate with a name similar to former President Barack Obama, is running as an independent candidate promoting global products and services.
- ▪The large number of candidates has raised concerns among experts about voter confusion and the burden of navigating a crowded ballot.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Politics exclusive Why there are 61 names on your ballot for governor – including Barack Obama By Zain Khan Published May 4, 2026, 6:05 p.m. ET Mail-in ballots have arrived in homes across California — along with some confusion. Xavier Becerra, Steve Hilton, Chad Bianco, Tom Steyer, and Katie Porter are among the names voters are familiar with as they consider who to advance to the November election. But when voters open their ballots to mark their choices, the exhaustive list of 61 candidates running for governor may come as a surprise. Yes — 61 candidates appear on the ballot, taking up two pages and five columns in the voter pamphlet. “It’s unusually high.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at New York Post.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from New York Post
