To provide some context, Michigan doesn’t have any means for the state to exclude someone from a primary unlike Colorado. Different states with different laws.
Why would Michigan need such a law?
It is in the US Constitution.
Does this mean Michigan must allow any candidate in a primary regardless if they are eligible to be president (e.g. under 35)?
Please point out which part of the US Constitution says that a person can’t run for the nomination of a political party in a state primary because of some criterion.
Note that this has nothing to do with eligibility to be POTUS. It is solely a matter of whether he can be on a ballot.
(Here’s a hint… The only thing the US Constitution says about electing the POTUS covers the electors. There isn’t anything else in there.)
Another way to look at it is that Michigan is more than happy to let the Republicans nominate a guy who can’t actually be in office.
14th amendment.
Primaries are paid for by the taxpayers. It is crazy to think someone who is ineligible to be president should be on the primary ticket (say: a 22 year-old). If the 22 year-old wins then what happens?
ISTM the state is paying for it and absolutely should be able to keep people out of the primary who cannot be on the general election ballot.
I’d think the parties would have rules about that too so some college kid doesn’t try to get on the ballot as a prank.
The difference is the GOP ain’t gonna put a kid on their ballot. They will put Trump on because MAGA. The net result, though, may end up being identical, depending upon SCOTUS. If their Electors end up casting their votes for someone ineligible, the Feds know how to handle that. Too bad, Michigan.
And the state is able to do that. Again, the Michigan legislature could pass a law to that effect, if they want to.
Nope. Nothing in there about primaries. Maybe you could read it again.
So, you think someone who is ineligible to be president can be on a primary ballot? Say, a teenager? They are allowed on a primary ballot? Kim Jong Un is allowed on a primary ballot?
That’s up to the parties and state law. It looks like in Michigan at least that could happen, theoretically.
Again, this is not a constitutional issue. Once you get to the general election and you’re dealing with electors, then you’re going into an area where the US Constitution has some say.
But it kinda is.
Let’s say the ineligible person wins and gets on the ballot. Then what?
You’d think the class clown running for president as a joke could never win but we got Trump. It can happen.
If they get the most votes than my state (Colorado) requires the electors to vote for them. Might make it interesting when the EV votes are counted.
I thought that the winner of a state primary gets the votes of that state’s delegates in the party convention.
The primary has nothing to do with the electors of that state.
Well then, the state might decide that the Republican Party doesn’t have someone on the ballot because they’re not eligible.
Here are rules on electors:
There is nothing there that prevents electors from choosing someone who is not eligible to be POTUS.
Now, if you recall, after the votes are tallied, there is a certification process. That’s what Trump tried to disrupt with his 1/6 insurrection attempt. That’s where objections can be made. If Trump is nominated and he’s deemed to be ineligible per the 14th Amendment, then I imagine that’s where this will come up.
We’re talking about stuff that is completely unprecedented though, so I don’t think anyone can say for certain what would actually happen.
I get this is uncharted territory.
Just seems it would be so much more simple to keep ineligible people off the ballot to begin with.
But, it seems, the states prefer to kick this ball down the road and let someone else deal with it.
What a potential mess that should be easily avoided (IMO).
I agree 100%.
If Trump is firmly projected as the winner by all networks next November, it is inconceivable to me that any Supreme Court, much less this one, would declare Biden the real winner.
Or are we going to discuss the possibility that Trump’s veep would, kicking and screaming, be installed as President by SCOTUS? This also seems implausible, and quite disturbing because of the likelihood Trump will pick someone as least as extreme as he is.
We’re in Air Bud territory here. “There’s nothing in the rules saying a dog can’t be on the primary!”
Ha! I had the same thought.
It seems the problem is there is no one at each step willing to stop it.
So, Air Bud gets in the primary and wins. State says they have no say over primaries.
Now Air Bud is on the general election ballot. State says whoever wins the primary is on the ballot, they can do nothing.
Air Bud wins the election in that state. State law says the electors must vote for the winner of the general election. Nothing they can do.
The Supreme Court claims this is a “political question” and kicks the can down the road.
Air Bud’s party is happy to have a dog as president so they block any attempt to remove him.
Sounds mad but where is it that this would be stopped? Really asking.
“But is he 35 in dog years?”
This illustrates the absurdity of a completely originalist approach to the U.S. constitution.
The 14th amendment was ratified about 30 years before the invention of the presidential primary. It should be interpreted in light of the system for selecting nominees having changed. Now the point as which to judge if the candidate is qualified should be when the candidate is first on a presidential ballot.