# Various states, including Colorado, determine Trump is disqualified from holding office **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [August 11, 2023, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412 "2023-08-11T16:27:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 41
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2023, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/802 "2023-12-29T22:56:15Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Pointless, since his chance of winning CA is precisely zero. I have it on good authority Trump won California during the last election. That good authority being Trump himself of course. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2023, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/803 "2023-12-29T22:59:50Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > > [@dtilque](#): > > > > It’s a vote by states, not individual representatives. > > Ah yes, I vaguely remember that there was something weird about it. Does each state just get one vote then? How is that vote determined among the various Congresspeople from that state? See > **[Contingent election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election)** > > In the United States, a contingent election is used to elect the president or vice president if no candidate receives a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed. A presidential contingent election is decided by a special vote of the United States House of Representatives, while a vice-presidential contingent election is decided by a vote of the United States Senate. During a contingent election in the House, each state delegation votes en bloc to choose the president instead of repr... In summary, each state’s House delegation votes amongst themselves to determine who that state’s one vote will be cast for. Presumably along straight party lines. If a state delegation ends up in a tie that state gets no vote at all for president. With the interesting side effect that if the minority party holds a majority in the majority of states, the minority party’s favorite will win the overall election. Which of course in the modern era is yet another way the Rs have a built-in advantage. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2023, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/804 "2023-12-29T23:11:41Z")
He won every fucking where! But it was rigged and STOLLEN! ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2023, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/805 "2023-12-29T23:13:54Z")
Pointless with regard to California, but it’s an indication that there may not be a national groundswell to remove him from ballots. Unfortunately. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2023, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/806 "2023-12-29T23:44:24Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Pointless, since his chance of winning CA is precisely zero. California has 169 GOP delegates, more than any other state. If Trump had been removed from the California primary ballot, Trump losing the nomination would have started looking like a real possibility. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/807 "2023-12-30T00:31:24Z")
Apologies — my last post misidentifies the quoted poster. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/808 "2023-12-30T01:04:41Z")
This is the second time I’ve fixed a misattributed quote by you. I’m not sure how it happens, but can you please flag it if you do it again? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/809 "2023-12-30T02:40:12Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > _purposivistically_ ? To supplement @psychonaut ‘s explanation, here’s the wiki article on purposive interpretation. It’s the leading principle in Canada for interpreting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. > **[Purposive approach](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purposive_approach)** > > The purposive approach (sometimes referred to as purposivism, purposive construction, purposive interpretation, or the modern principle in construction) is an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation under which common law courts interpret an enactment (a statute, part of a statute, or a clause of a constitution) within the context of the law's purpose. > Purposive interpretation is a derivation of mischief rule set in Heydon's Case, and intended to replace the mischief rule, the pl... ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/810 "2023-12-30T13:44:18Z")
> [@excavating\_for\_a\_mind](#): > > How could the Supremes assume power not given to them in the Constitution by placing requirements (such as a Criminal prosecution) on top of what Congress (and the people by ratification) have written? That is, if the SC tried to say that a criminal conviction was required, couldn’t the State of Colorado question why the Civil conviction did not meet the requirements of Due Process? Oh, I agree with you. I’m just trying to predict how the right side of the court will rule. I’m jaded enough to believe that they will begin with their preferred result (_of course_ trump is eligible to be president), and then try to contort the law to reach that aim. How so? I _predict_ that they will impose some additional requirements before a person is deemed to have engaged in insurrection, under the guise of due process. I mean, it seems a bridge too far for them to otherwise conclude that a) the 14th amendment can be ignored or b) that the amendment didn’t apply to the office of the presidency. Is it legislating from the bench? Absolutely. Is it contrary to “conservative” judicial philosophy? Also true. But it’s what I think they’ll end up doing. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/811 "2023-12-30T20:02:55Z")
Sadly, I agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/812 "2023-12-30T21:26:29Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > How so? I _predict_ that they will impose some additional requirements before a person is deemed to have engaged in insurrection, under the guise of due process. I mean, it seems a bridge too far for them to otherwise conclude that a) the 14th amendment can be ignored or b) that the amendment didn’t apply to the office of the presidency. I don’t see why they won’t go for option (b) above. They already have a strong preference towards granting massive leeway towards the executive. I could absolutely see them saying that actions taken while President cannot, by definition, be insurrections. How can you rebel against the current government when you _are_ the current government? I think it’s a BS argument, but at least one appellate court in CO agreed with that argument (or a similar one), so it’s not too far a stretch for SCOTUS to do the same, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![excavating\_for\_a\_mind](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e8c25b/32.png) [@excavating\_for\_a\_mind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/excavating_for_a_mind)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/813 "2023-12-30T21:50:51Z")
I’m not sure the **right side** of the court wants Trump as President. At least, not if maneuvering court decisions could result in precedents that could be used against them, or what they want. If they raise the bar for the 14th to apply, they will have to justify where they put it. If they put it at a criminal conviction, they are, in effect, allowing politicians to engage in insurrection against their own government. I say that because our legal system is designed to allow many guilty offenders to go free to prevent incarceration of innocent people. This is well-known and, in normal times, creates much discontent for those on the right. They see people who break the law go free on a technicality, and it makes them mad. It is also well known that the wealthy and influential have a much better chance at avoiding criminal conviction, though. As most politicians would fit the wealthy and influential label, this would make for an unstable structure. It would encourage politicians to use insurrection, i.e., violence, as a political tactic. Insurrection would be strategically acceptable as long as the leader did not get convicted. I truly like to hope that those in charge do not want to be responsible for an unstable government. The easiest thing for the SC to do would be to simply rule on whether or not the Colorado SoS has the authority to keep Trump off the ballot due to the 14th Amendment. Existing precedents say the states do have the authority to control the ballots, so it would have to be a decision crafted specifically at the 14th Amendment. I don’t know if they will try that. They could just kick the can and say that if the Colorado SoS wants to keep Trump off the Primary Ballot, they crossed all the t’s and dotted all the i’s necessary to do it (or perhaps not if there is a couple of j’s they missed). They may decide that Write-In votes for Trump must be counted, resulting in a partial ruling. If I had quatloos to bet, that’s where they’d go. There really is no question that Trump engaged in insurrection. While I doubt the US SC will state that as clearly as the Colorado SC did, I really don’t see the SC trying to rule otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/814 "2023-12-30T23:11:06Z")
> [@excavating\_for\_a\_mind](#): > > The easiest thing for the SC to do would be to simply rule on whether or not the Colorado SoS has the authority to keep Trump off the ballot due to the 14th Amendment. Existing precedents say the states do have the authority to control the ballots, so it would have to be a decision crafted specifically at the 14th Amendment. > > I don’t know if they will try that. They could just kick the can and say that if the Colorado SoS wants to keep Trump off the Primary Ballot, they crossed all the t’s and dotted all the i’s necessary to do it (or perhaps not if there is a couple of j’s they missed). They may decide that Write-In votes for Trump must be counted, resulting in a partial ruling. If I had quatloos to bet, that’s where they’d go. > > There really is no question that Trump engaged in insurrection. While I doubt the US SC will state that as clearly as the Colorado SC did, I really don’t see the SC trying to rule otherwise. That’s certainly the low-barrier approach for SCOTUS. Don’t actually affirm that CO’s SC got the insurrection call correct, merely say that SCOTUS confirms it’s CO’s call to make as to their _primary_ ballots. And thereby confirm it’s also all the other states’ right to do so per their own state laws. Depending on the details of the 50 states’ plus few territories’ laws, that right may or may not extend to the general election ballot. But … Given the extreme partisan corruption in some states, that will almost certainly create some state that tries to purge Biden from their _general_ election ballot on (dare I say it?) trumped up charges. This would happen sooner if Biden wasn’t seeking reelection, but since the Ds won’t be having a 2024 primary election, there’s no D primary ballot for the corrupt folks to screw with. Once some corrupt state purges Biden from the general election ballot the court case fighting the purge will quickly find its way to SCOTUS’ door. Where they will have to grasp the nettle that there are upper limits to the (un)reasonableness of the states’ rights to discretion. Which limits they will have to both divine in a hurry and invite the Federal government to enforce. If we thought sending federal troops in to monitor school desegregation and elections in the 1960s was a shitshow, this will be a lot more exciting. Can you imagine Federal troops manning every polling place in Texas, first delivering all the Federally-approved ballots, then taking them all away for counting? Over the several weeks of early voting then finally on Election Day? QAnon would be having the first continuous 2-month long orgasm in human history. ---
**Author:** ![excavating\_for\_a\_mind](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e8c25b/32.png) [@excavating\_for\_a\_mind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/excavating_for_a_mind)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/815 "2023-12-30T23:33:10Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > … > But … > > Given the extreme partisan corruption in some states, that will almost certainly create some state that tries to purge Biden from their _general_ election ballot on (dare I say it?) trumped up charges. This would happen sooner if Biden wasn’t seeking reelection, but since the Ds won’t be having a 2024 primary election, there’s no D primary ballot for the corrupt folks to screw with. > … The “but” here is that there is no mechanism to keep Biden off the General Election Ballots, since neither Biden or Trump will be on those ballots. Only the electors for Biden or Trump (god forbid) will be on those ballots and, assuming that the Major Parties do their due diligence, those electors will not have been involved in any insurrection. That’s the point I have been trying to make between the difference between the Primary ballot and the General ballot. The 14th Amendment specifically applies to electors, not the candidate. That is not in question. The whole method used to determine the President needs to be overhauled, since the way we vote has changed so much since they were developed. With letting women, regular people, and even minorities vote, and electronic communication, a lot of the safeguards built into the system are not only ineffective, but detrimental to a fair and honest result. Unfortunately, there are too many on both sides that think they can game the current system to their benefit, so I don’t see any change coming quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2023, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/816 "2023-12-31T00:34:06Z")
So in another thread I mentioned this possibility: The 14th amendment, section 5, states > [@](#): > > The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. I wonder if the court will say that only _Congress_ has the power to disqualify a candidate due to insurrection referenced in Article 3 of the amendment. That would invalidate the decision in Colorado (and elsewhere) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2023, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/817 "2023-12-31T00:36:50Z")
> [@excavating\_for\_a\_mind](#): > > The easiest thing for the SC to do would be to simply rule on whether or not the Colorado SoS has the authority to keep Trump off the ballot due to the 14th Amendment. No, IMHO (IANAL) the easiest thing would be to say trump isnt convicted (yet) and thus until he is, this is a no-go. I couldnt even say that would be wrong. > [@excavating\_for\_a\_mind](#): > > The “but” here is that there is no mechanism to keep Biden off the General Election Ballots, since neither Biden or Trump will be on those ballots. Only the electors for Biden or Trump (god forbid) will be on those ballots When I vote, I vote for the candidate, not a slate of electors. Sure, I know that that is what I am really voting for, but the candidates name appears. And they have to vote for that named candidate. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2023, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/818 "2023-12-31T00:50:39Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, IMHO (IANAL) the easiest thing would be to say trump isnt convicted (yet) and thus until he is, this is a no-go. > > I couldnt even say that would be wrong. I could. What precedence there is says that the person excluded does not have to be convicted of anything. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2023, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/819 "2023-12-31T01:03:31Z")
I think that that clause means that Congress could pass a law saying that it requires a criminal conviction, or Congress could pass a law saying that it requires only a civil trial with its lower burden of proof, or Congress could pass a law setting some other standard entirely, and if Congress passed any such law, then that law would govern… but so far as I know, Congress has never passed any such law, and there’s no guidance as to what the standard should be in the absence of such a law. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2023, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/820 "2023-12-31T01:03:55Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > I don’t see why they won’t go for option (b) above. They already have a strong preference towards granting massive leeway towards the executive. On the contrary, they’ve done the opposite. They’ve reined in Trump’s attempts to have unlimited power multiple times. This seems like a bizarre take. Yes, even those he nominated. They don’t owe him anything and made it clear. > [@Moriarty](#): > > I wonder if the court will say that only _Congress_ has the power to disqualify a candidate due to insurrection referenced in Article 3 of the amendment. I have to reluctantly admit that this seems like a very strong argument to me. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2023, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/821 "2023-12-31T01:40:44Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > I could. What precedence there is says that the person excluded does not have to be convicted of anything. There is no precedence- at all, for any of this-, except that in the USA, you are innocent until proven guilty. Which I am sure he is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412.md?page=40) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412.md?page=42)