I may be wrong, but I don’t think it was for former Confederates kept off ballots following the passage of the 14th Amendment.
That’s a bit over the top IMO.
As we see with Michigan, trump can only be left off the primary ballot in states where the state laws permit the state executive to vet the ballot. I don’t know which states have those laws, but there’s no a priori to assume that’s biased red or blue, since any such laws likely date back decades; well before the “R party before country” movement really got going. That’s issue #1.
Issue #2 is which states have statutes granting general election ballot review to their executive. e.g it appears MI law does provide for the executive to vet the November ballot, just not the parties’ primary ballots. Again which states have this and which don’t could lean red or blue based on history, but isn’t a difference obviously along partisan lines.
There are Red states where the Rs have pretty well suborned the entire state government into service of the sole legitimate and forever ruling Party. TX and Paxton come immediately to mind. There are also Red states where they have not. GA comes readily to mind.
So although partisanship will get a look in on which states will or won’t ban trump from the ballot, I believe the final outcome will be far more complex and nuanced than simply: “trump’s on every red state ballot and many blue state ballots, regardless of state law or state court cases on the merits.”
As others have said, it will be very interesting to see how SCOTUS spins any decision to override states’ rights having just made a bunch of decisions favoring states’ rights in situations where the constitutional provisions are far murkier than this one.
My counter is that that state plenary power is not absolute. As per SCOTUS the states cannot increase the qualification criteria that are within the Constitution of Congresspeople. Assuming that applies to President and Vice-President as well then that would imply that Trump’s eligibility re: the 14th Amendment is a federal issue and as such any ruling by SCOTUS applies to every state.
I’m thinking of Mel Carnahan. He was duly elected although not qualified being not-alive at election time and a replacement was picked. I’m wondering that if states using their power could tell electors in Trump-won states that they are not allowed to vote for him since he is not eligible even if the court rules he needs to stay on the ballot or the SoS does not have the power to remove him from the ballot. I also wonder if an electoral vote for an ineligible candidate can be blocked by the Joint Session as not regularly given. I don’t think so because the new law states that Congress must respect the slates given to them, but does that mean they would need to count a vote for Elon Musk?
The factual answer is twelve so long as those twelve are:
CA, TX, FL, GA, NC, VA, IL, MI, OH, PA, NY, NJ
Obviously that isn’t going to happen in a few of those states.
I think too many people confuse the Primary election with the General election. As far as I know, there is not anybody working to keep Trump off the ballot for the General election, yet. What Maine and Colorado are doing in exercising their rights to control the Primary election, rights various SC rulings have upheld, to my understanding.
Those who appear on a Primary ballot are not, technically, candidates. They are not running for office. Rather, they are trying to get nominated by their party to be a candidate for office.
So, it seems to me that the practical strategic effect of keeping Trump off the Primary ballot in some states is that could affect the number of delegates he gets at the convention, or even make the GOP itself seriously question whether or not they want nominate a candidate who is not suitable to hold the office.
Of course, the strategy of the Colorado court rulings seems clear. As I understand, the district court held a bench trial where the SOS and defendant (Trump’s team) were offered the opportunity to present their case, whether or not the 14th Amendment applied. After hearing the arguments, the court ruled that while the evidence showed that Trump did engage in insurrection, the Amendment did not apply because the office of President was not an officer of the US.
That is, a civil trial was held that found Trump did, in fact, engage in insurrection. This is critical. Trump was afforded due process and that process affirmed that he did engage in insurrection.
Upon review by the State’s Supreme Court, it was found that the President was, in fact, an officer who had previously taken an oath to support the constitution. I think they even reviewed the evidence presented in the circuit court supporting Trump’s engaging in an insurrection (the decision is 213 pages and I have only skimmed it). To thwart potential delays, the Colorado SC stayed their own decision to force the US SC to at least agree to hear the case (or not) by Jan 4, 2024. While this doesn’t force a decision by that date, it does speed things up since if they agree to hear it, they will be expected to rule on it before the primaries start in earnest.
So, even if Trump isn’t allowed to be on some primary ballots, there is nothing in either the Colorado or Maine rulings that would keep him off the General election ballots. I suspect the Supreme Court decision on the Colorado case will make that a moot issue.
Not following this. Colorado has deemed him ineligible to hold the office and therefore bumped him from the primary ballot (pending appeals). How does that not also make him persona non grata for the general election ballot?
The liberals from California are running to Texas to avoid liberal policies of California (but they are still liberals), and millions of aliens have flooded into Texas over the past 4 years. They can register vote (not supposed to, but no way to stop them), and they will no doubt vote almost 100% for the democrat who let them in with no restrictions. Trump only won Texas by 600,000 votes (5% margin). It’s definitely in swing state status by this point in time. It’s like what happened in Georgia, once solid red, it is now solid purple, and moving in the blue direction; it too has been flooded with immigrant Hispanics over the past 25 years, plus a large number of people from liberal New England moved south to escape liberal policies – high taxes – and it finally took it’s toll in 2020.
Clearly this is not the way the states are thinking about it. If the state determinations about primary ballots were not based on him running for office, then they would have nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. Colorado and Maine have determined that 14A applies to Trump. That must mean it applies to the General ballot (in those states) too.
Except that it makes no sense that the process he is due should be in a state court. One state is not going to be binding on a different state, so we end up not only with 50 different state laws being applied, but 50 different finders of fact on the same federal election issue reaching contradictory conclusions. You clearly cannot run a functioning democracy that way. Either the Supreme Court acts decisively to resolve the inadequacy of the Constitution on this issue, or chaos ensues.
I’m not sure, but the ruling by the Colorado courts was only that he was ineligible to be on the Primary Ballot. Presumably, there could be a different argument for the General. Do the reasons cited by the SoS for bringing the suit to begin with apply to the General?
One step at a time.
Uh, yeah, it’s actually really easy to stop them. I’m not sure you understand how registering to vote works. And nobody’s let anyone in without restrictions.
The only problem with that is there is no Federal statute for insurrection. There have been other candidates who have been prohibited from taking office under the 14th Amendment. They were not found guilty of insurrection, how did that happen?
The Constitution is silent on this. It does say that Congress can pass laws to clarify, but nowhere does it allow the courts to make-up their own standards. What I am saying is that the SC cannot say Trump was denied due process on a civil matter when he was, in fact, served with due process.
Yes, I know how registering to vote works. You go down to the voter registration office (typically a county clerk sort of office) and ask to register. They hand you a card to fill out. You fill it out, and give it back to them. You are registered. There is a checkbox yes-or-no for being a US citizen, but you can check “yes” and they aren’t allowed to ask for proof. Most states even let you register online. That’s how voter registration works. (Yes, and ID is required, but a driver’s license is an acceptable ID, and my drivers license doesn’t show my citizenship status on it.
On that occasion, did 50 states all act as independent factfinders and reach different conclusions about these candidates? The inadequacy of the Constitution to resolve such a clusterfuck was never exposed on that occasion.
The fact that something once happen correctly and in line with the intent does not imply that there exists adequate process to resolve the issue when there is no consensus.
And as I’ve said in the other thread, this is a bug, not a feature. It needs to be addressed.
I don’t think there is any consensus on the precise limits of what the SC can and cannot do. When the Constitution is silent on the matter, I think decreeing that the SC cannot do something sensible to establish a federal process for the consistent application of 14A in all states is treating the Constitution as a suicide pact for democracy.
One thing is for sure: it’s a mess. And it’s purely political. Partisan hacks on the far left are pursuing prosecution on hundreds of charges against Trump, hoping that maybe one or two will stick. Partisan hacks on the right are looking the other way, claiming they can’t see anything wrong whatsoever. At the same time, Biden and family are getting slow walked in every respect. If those same left-wing prosecutors went after Biden with the same zeal, he would certainly have dozens of charges, too, just hoping one or two would stick . . . Hunter would already have been prosecuted, convicted, and sitting in a jail cell somewhere, because there’s no question he actually did the crimes he’s been accused of. It’s just one big political mess; Trump probably did some of the things he is accused of (like having classified document in an insecure place), but many others (Hilary, Biden, Pence, for examples) did the exact same thing, and nobody’s talking about prosecuting them.
Well, it was explicitly targeting the primary ballot because that’s the process underway. But the ruling that bumped him from the primary ballot (pending appeals) included a finding of fact that he committed insurrection as addressed by 14A.
They’ve determined he’s ineligible to hold the office, that fact has been decided. Done! ISTM, removing him from the general ballot is a mere formality when the time comes, assuming he wins the primary via write-in votes. If he doesn’t get the write-ins, it’s even easier. He’s not on the GOP general election ballot because he didn’t win the GOP primary.
Right. SCOTUS would never do such a thing. /s
Nothing in this sentence is accurate.
Nothing in that paragraph is accurate except the spelling.
So nice that responding to that… stuff, will be deemed to be hijacking the thread.
This is so factually wrong I don’t even know where to begin.