This is not true. As I pointed out above, a primary is held to determine who the state will vote for at the convention.
It’s the party who determines who will be their nominee and appears on the ballot.
So…why have a primary if the people at the convention pick whomever they want?
And what if they pick Air Bud?
I get this is getting ridiculous and maybe annoying. My goal is to learn where the buck stops. Who says no, this cannot happen? Even if everyone wants it to happen, it cannot happen. This candidate can go no further because they are legally ineligible to take that office per the US Constitution.
We can bring it closer to possible:
What if former president Obama decided to run for a third term? Where would he have been stopped in that attempt?
The purpose of the primary is to determine the person who the delegates of that state will vote for at the convention.
That’s why the nomination is usually sewed up before the convention.
I’m guessing that if he entered his name in a primary, somebody would immediately challenge it in court, and would win.
Which circles back to what has happened with Trump and the court punted.
With the obvious difference that Obama is disqualified from holding the office, by virtue of the 22nd amendment of the Constitution.
Excellent question.
While it is extremely unlikely he would ever do that, rare neurological disorders can change personality, so it is conceivable.
I believe Obama would be stopped from going onto most primary ballots roughly the way it happened in Colorado or may be happening in Maine. State secretaries of state and judges would see that both parties wanted the obviously mentally ill former president off the ballot, and, since it would not be very controversial, they would do it.
And Trump disqualified by virtue of the 14th amendment of the Constitution.
That is yet to be determined, right?
Yes…Colorado
No…Michigan
On what basis would the suit be brought in states like Michigan, where the state Supreme Court has ruled that the state can’t keep someone off the primary?
How does a name/person actually get on a primary ballot? Could you or I enter the primary in Michigan?
No idea. I’m obviously ineligible, but the Michigan Supreme Court decision suggests that if I do the needful and get on the ballot, there’s nothing the state can do about it.
ETA: not that I’ve read it. Just relying on media reports of what they said.
Thank you.
From this article:
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said she is gratified by the ruling and it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to provide further clarity.
“We clearly stated months ago that, when it comes to ballot access for candidates in a presidential primary, my authority is limited to ensuring that any individuals ‘generally advocated by the national news media to be potential presidential candidates,’ along with any recommended by state political parties, qualify to be on the ballot,” Benson said in a news release. “We followed that law.”
So it looks to me like it’s up to the Michigan SOS to determine eligibility. If the SOS approves, then it’s okay.
I doubt that the Michigan SOS would approve Obama.
ETA: Just my opinion, based on that quotation.
Well, at least it’s not “The National News Media”… yet.
And this is where you still completely fail to understand the fundamental differences between the cases and the state laws they were decided under.
There is no requirement that all laws in any single jurisdiction be completely logical and completely air tight and have foreseen and addressed every possible eventuality no matter how far-fetched. Beyond that, in our complicated multi-level governmental system there is no requirement that the laws be the same in two distinct jurisdictions.
You (any you) trying to apply contrary expectations to any set of laws is doomed to result in misunderstanding and failure. And quadruply so when we’re dealing with a) unprecedented situations, and b) seldom- or never-tested portions of the US constitution.
Colorado has laws that say the state government can vet the primary ballot. So they have done so, and the CO Supremes have found (weakly) that the state executive branch has operated reasonably within the discretion granted by the state legislature. Having exercised that discretion, trump’s off the CO Republican primary ballot (for now).
Michigan has no such laws; the state government has no statute-granted right to vet the primary ballot. And the MI Supremes have found that citizens asking the state executive to do that, in the absence of any authority for the executive to do so, must not be accommodated. So the state government of MI has no ability to vet the R primary ballot and the state R party is free to put anyone, including Air Bud, on their private organizational primary ballot.
It is utterly NOT surprising to me that these two very different questions about very different laws have very different answers.
What is surprising is that so many folks are dumbfounded about this. And remain dumbfounded past explanation after explanation.
This seems a relevant place to post this.
Comedian Chris Titus (who I follow on Instagram) is rampaging against trump on this issue with posts arguing that the constitution clearly prevents him from running for president.
What’s amusing is he seems to be taking on all trump defenders; he’s responding to all the trolls.
It’s quite an effort.
With the “Biden is free to do the same with zero consequence” he (and others I’ve seen) do seem to be muddling the question of eligibility for future office with the question of immunity while president. The SC will be ruling on both issues in separate appeals, the latter is the one that they refused to expedite.
What I fail to understand is how two states differ on:
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 US Constitution supersedes state law. The states should not need a special law to deal with this.
If Person-A engaged in insurrection they cannot hold office. Therefore, putting them on any ballot is just a waste of time and money and confuses voters.
Yes. In a complete, consistent, and logical system of laws that would be true.
But MI law lacks the authority to pre-screen the primary ballot of a private organization to prevent this possibility from occurring. The MI legislature did not think in advance that this situation would arise and build into their statutes a filter against it. As the MI Supremes have said, the legislature certainly could have done so, and is free to do so now if they want. But until and unless they do, there’s no action the MI state executive can take.
So the filter, if any, will be downstream, or will be in the voters’ hands.