States run the primary elections. They coordinate it, set the time and place, setup the polls and get the poll workers and pay for the whole thing. While the parties may be private, the elections are very much public.
Well, that is the Republican Plan for running everything.
Winning the primary and getting on the general election ballot are not the same thing. If a party wants to nominate someone who can’t win the general, or possibly (depending on state law) can’t even get on the general election ballot, that’s their problem.
Of course, it’s not at all rare or unprecedented for a party to nominate someone, and then that someone doesn’t get on the ballot. It happens all the time. It’s rare that it would happen to one of the two largest parties in the country, but the laws are the same for large parties as for small parties.
As I’ve stated previously, I don’t see any way a responsible, sane SCOTUS can sidestep this, as much as they’d prefer. It is beyond chaos that a candidate can be declared ineligible in one state and eligible in another— for the same act, relative to the same Federal law. A candidate is either eligible for the presidency or he is not—for every state.
Regardless of whether or not our federated model permits threading a Constitutional needle that kicks the can down the road, permitting state-by-state interpretations, SCOTUS must step in now and say, “Okay, this is what it means, and this is how it works, for everyone.” The Constitution is not a suicide pact, as the saying goes. SCOTUS must have the courage to make a stand and make the call. Any other scenario is madness.
Damn it, I used up my daily italics ration in one post.
They haven’t differed. The Colorado ruling did address Trump’s eligibility. The Michigan ruling did not, because they held that the Michigan Secretary of State lacked the statutory authority under Michigan law to screen qualifications at the primary ballot stage.
Right, but if the state law doesn’t provide for pre-screening, that’s a decision of the state legislature.
Does that mean I can submit a list of 100,000 people to go on the ballot in Michigan for the Whack-a-Mole party? If they cannot screen qualifications then what stops me from doing that?
Depending on the state, filings typically require petitions with a minimum number of state residents having signed in support of the candidate, and/or a filing fee. That’s likely to prevent a mass number of candidates filing.
One of the requirements for being president is being a “natural born” U.S. citizen; a podcast host name Cenk Uygur, who was born in Turkey, has declared as a Democratic candidate, and has gotten onto the primary ballot in a couple of states, apparently because the secretaries of state in those states have indicated that the laws of their states do not contain a provision for them to vet candidates for eligibility. In other states, he’s filed, but been barred from the ballot, because he’s not a natural-born citizen.
Yes, and in case anyone missed it, we have a thread discussing that here in P&E.
The Cenk Uygur case is much simpler. He is not a natural-born citizen so is clearly ineligible. There’s no ambiguity. The fact that he has still managed to qualify for the Democratic primary in some states just shows how some states have little to no say in who is allowed into a primary. I mean, in the case of the Democratic Party there isn’t even any ambiguity; barring something like a severe medical catastrophe or a sudden decision to not run, Biden is the nominee. The Democratic primary itself is a formality.
It really does vary from state to state. It has nothing to do with actual eligibility for the office itself. It’s a procedural matter codified (or not) into the laws of the states.
As I understand it, this ruling left open the door to challenge Trump’s eligibility to appear on the general election ballot, as the Executive has some statutory authority over those ballots.
Trump may win the primary but be banned from the general election ballot.
And now… Maine.
It will be fun to watch the RW - the perennial champions of states’ rights - go apoplectic when states actually, you know, exercise their rights explicitly granted them by the constitution.
Bellows found that Trump could no longer run for his prior job because his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol violated Section 3, which bans from office those who “engaged in insurrection.” Bellows made the ruling after some state residents, including a bipartisan group of former lawmakers, challenged Trump’s position on the ballot.
Bolding mine. That is what I find interesting.
The suit in Colorado was brought by a group of Republicans, as well. And still the lunatics shout and stomp and blame democrats in general and Biden in particular for “election interference” in removing that asshat from the primary ballot.
Kinda like nearly all of the testimony damning trump in relation to January 6 as well as his illegal document retention comes from Republicans and trump employees.
And Maine is likely consequential, albeit in a small way - 1 of Maine’s 4 votes went to Trump in 2016 & 2020.
As Maine goes, so goes the nation…
Jocelyn Benson is a Democrat, so she probably wouldn’t have a problem with letting Obama on the ballot.
Well, I think it does put pressure on the Supreme Court to issue an opinion, and not just decline to take up the Colorado appeal. Otherwise, we may expect a 2024 election where a possible GOP nominee is only on some of the states’ ballots.
No, she wouldn’t let him on the ballot. She knows he’s ineligible.
The Michigan Secretary of State would let him on the primary ballot, because, as mentioned, she doesn’t have the authority to not let him on.
Okay, I’m confused. Do you mean Obama today, or Obama in 2012/2016? I thought you meant the latter, and were assuming she was a Birther.