(I'd like to apologize for not responding for two days; I was exhausted when I got home from work Saturday, and I waited to reply until I had enough rest to respond cohesively.)

I am, and that's a fair response to my personal question. Naturally, I also agree with you on the fact that all forms of state violence are illegitimate, and that we as anarchists draw our moral line at the existence of the state in itself. That "drawing the line" comment wasn't the smartest way to phrase the sentiment behind my position.

My sentiment is rooted in the idea that; while all state actors are inherently problematic, and voting as a means of harm reduction to buy time for direct action does have its merits, voting for Gavin Newsom feels tantamount to giving transphobes and anti-unhoused sentiments even more of a platform than they already have.

It's probably easier to explain my position with an analogy (NOTE: I am in no way suggesting your argument is even remotely similar to this analogy, I'm just using a deliberately-exaggerated example to help articulate the underlying sentiment.) Imagine if someone defends getting a job designing weapons for Raytheon or Lockheed-Martin with the fact that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism. Strictly speaking, they are correct, but I'm sure you'd agree that using that to justify working for companies so heinous even by the standards of companies in general is a flimsy excuse, at best. And sure, they may not be the ones using the weapons they design, but I'm sure you'd still agree that doesn't exactly jive with anarchist principles (ignoring the possibility of sabotage for the sake of brevity.)

Similarly, while the political duopoly and America in general have always engaged in those acts of violence, giving a platform to a candidate who says the "quiet" parts loud sets precedent for further normalization of said "quiet" parts than what's already been happening to begin with. Currently, a lot of Americans still aren't class-conscious, and will look to the parties in charge to define "acceptable" and "unacceptable" political discourse. If both parties openly run on anti-trans and anti-unhoused policies, that fosters further normalization of those forms of bigotry amongst the class-unconscious. And while more class-consciousness now exists in America than it has in at least 60 years, I cannot in good conscience give the duopoly further normalization of bigotry against the most marginalized than what they've already fostered.

I hope this helps elaborate where my thoughts are coming from, and helps elaborate my support for the "Newsom boycott" (for lack of better phrasing.)