Let the Republicans take their accusations to the courts.
Republicans: “Oh, is this the part where we have to prove something?”
ETA: partly ninja’d in the meanwhile.
OTOH … SCOTUS could decide to punt on this and leave it up to 50 sets of state election officials and 50 state courts to decide who to leave off which presidential ballot for whatever reasons contrived or legit.
They could argue it’s an inherently political question so out of their bailiwick.
They can also argue that the constitution explicitly gives each state the right to select its electors however it wants. Including by not having a popular vote at all. Such that who’s on which ballots, or whether there even are ballots, is simply not a federal question.
But if SCOTUS refuses to take up the case, there won’t be any reason for red states to take anything to court. They’ll just say, “Welp, looks to us like Biden gave aid and cofort to our enemies, so off the ballot he goes.”
They made a good point on CNN related to the obvious talking point of “they can’t beat Trump fairly”.
How did Trump get his start in the political sphere? The “Birtherism” movement.
What was the point of that movement? To argue that Obama should not be eligible to run as president on constitutional grounds.
(NB: I’m not comparing the two situations: Birtherism was based on lies, racism and refusing to accept refuting evidence. Just pointing out hypocrisy number 73522)
I’ll bet lots of Pubs are kicking themselves right now for not removing Obama from state ballots over this bullshit in 2008 or 2012.
That shouldn’t fly.
U.S. Constitution, Article 4, section 4
(It goes without saying, I hope, that “Republican form” refers to a representative democracy)
One thing that I found interesting in the opinion was that there was only one judge, Justice Samour, found any of Trump’s arguments on the merits of the 14th Amendment issue to be persuasive. The others dissented on state law election grounds.
I also loved this quote:
“For purposes of deciding this case, we need not adopt a single, all-encompassing definition of the word “insurrection.” Rather, it suffices for us to conclude that any definition of “insurrection” for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country.”
Huh? For the first 100 years of our country there were no popular elections for President. It’s totally constitutional for some or all states to have no popular election for president.
A “republican form of government” is not the same thing as “the citizens shall vote for everything”.
I’m not sure what you are saying. We still don’t have popular elections for president - we elect the electors of the electoral college.
But I’m not aware of any states where people (well, some people) were not permitted to vote for those electors.
To be clear, you saying that a state could just abolish elections altogether?
Who said it was? I referred to it as a representative democracy - the people (however narrowly the people are defined) are guaranteed a vote for who shall represent them. And, according to the constitution, that vote for president is for the electors of the electoral college (just as originally that vote was for state legislators who selected US senators).
Attenuated though it is, I think this is distinct from a state decision to abolish voting. I don’t believe that would be constitutional (my original point).
This is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The “enemies” listed are those who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same”, in other words, insurrectionists. That’s unambiguous. China, Russia, Kazakhstan, or Ukraine can’t rebel against the US because none of them are part of the US. You can’t use that part of the Constitution to disqualify Biden due to some claims that his family did business over there.
It’s not even a flimsy argument; it’s no argument at all. That Daily Kos article seems like total clickbait.
It was very common in the early 1800s for electors to be appointed by the state legislatures. There are many cites out there. The Wikipedia article on Electoral College might be a good place to start.
I guess you could argue that even then those legislators were “some people” who maybe have participated in some kind of legislative voting process when the electors were appointed.
Are you asserting that nobody voted in those early states during the presidential election (same as now).
Can you give an example?
Not if you’re sane, and care about the meaning of the Constitution. Unfortunately, today’s GOP isn’t and doesn’t. If SCOTUS refuses the case, what will stop red states from using this bullshit argument to disqualify Biden?
Exactly. There was no popular voting for US President. No citizen expected to vote for President as we do now. Not directly and not indirectly via the EC. That’s just how the country worked. Citizens voted for federal representatives, and for their statehouse. They did not vote for US senators, nor for US president.
The state legislatures decided who they wanted to appoint as their two US senators. The state legislatures decided who they wanted their allotment of presidential electors to vote for President. The citizens’ input into both those decisions was limited to electing state legislators that they hoped would do as the citizens wanted.
And how did those legislatures make these decisions? Sometimes via public recorded vote, and sometimes by backroom deal-making. It was not (and is not today) the business of the Federal government how those decisions were made. Only that they got done timely to seat a senate and a president on schedule.
There is nothing in Federal law that precludes any or all states from returning to that old way of doing things.
That kind of process is not unusual even in modern democracies. The UK or Canadian Prime Minister is not directly elected.
The way it used to work was that people elected state legislators (as mandated in Article I of the US Constitution) and those legislators chose the electors. The electors then voted for POTUS. The popular vote wasn’t a factor at all for most states at first. In the early 1800s, with the rise of Jacksonian democracy, that changed, and the last state to tie electors of the state to the popular vote was South Carolina, which didn’t do so until after the Civil War ended. (They didn’t even participate in the 1864 presidential election because they weren’t in the union at the time.)
Since then each state has tied the choosing of electors to the popular vote, though even today it’s not uniform, as 48 states apportion all votes to whoever wins the popular vote in the state and 2 of them do it proportionately (Maine and Nebraska).
I think if any state tried to roll back and remove the popular vote from the process it would be a huge, controversial mess. But it wouldn’t be unconstitutional to do so. Things didn’t change due to any federal laws being passed, but because each state decided to make those changes themselves.
Nothing would stop them from trying, of course. The same way that the Republicans in the House of Representatives can try to remove Biden from office through impeachment without any justification, they can do the same here.
But if a state manages to be so corrupt that they remove Biden from the ballot without justification in response to this, I have no doubt that will get taken up and reversed by SCOTUS. We may not like many members of the Supreme Court but they aren’t insane.
Why? If SCOTUS refuses to hear the Colorado case, they’re saying it’s none of their business – not “None of our business because your reasoning is sound.”
I mean, I hope what you say is true, and it would be in any sane universe, but I can’t assume we’re in a sane universe these days.
The Republicans wouldn’t take it to court, but the Dems certainly would if Biden is kicked off the ballot somewhere. The officials who did it would then have to provide evidence and arguments to support their actions.
Regardless of who takes it to court, why would officials have to do this if SCOTUS refuses to hear the cases? I have little doubt that the Texas SoS would be able to persuade the Texas Supreme Court that Biden was ineligible.