You could do it. You have to file a complaint with the court and send a copy to the defendant. I’m sure that’s no where near as easy as it sounds, and then someone in the court has to get your complaint into the hands of a judge who has to find some merit to it. And it costs money too. But more likely some organization will do this.
Thanks! I had a feeling I was forgetting something. I should have remembered at least Murkowski; that was pretty well publicized, and I was following elections fairly closely by then.
And I probably should have looked it up; I was feeling lazy.
ETA: There have probably also been other small-scale local elections, which we just haven’t heard of; I only know about that one because it was around here.
SCOTUS can rule any way they’d like and there’s no recourse, of course. That aside, this is not a complicated constitutional issue at all. The text is very clear on the age requirement. If 51% of Americans voted that the Baptist church should be the official church of the U.S., SCOTUS would almost certainly rule that the “will of the people” got it wrong.
ISTM, though, that the AOC or “Trump the Insurrectionist” challenge comes earlier—and rapidly, as an emergency—as soon as the candidate is on the ballot. Maybe sooner. I know the wheels of justice turn slowly, but I think this is a situation where common sense would prevail—“Whoa! We really can’t let this go too far. Once the allegedly unqualified candidate is elected, we have a hellacious mess.”
I’ve heard of at least one organization that says they plan to. CREW, Citizens for Reform and Ethics in Washington, i think it stands for. They were the outfit that helped sue to have an insurrectionist removed from state government in Arizona or New Mexico (i can’t remember which) and won. He was barred from holding office and removed from his position after he was elected.
He was a New Mexico county commissioner. A state judge ruled that he was ineligible to office per the 14th Amendment provisions that are the subject of the OP.
Not in my state. The government runs the primaries and decides, based on law, who gets on the ballot. Here is a relevant Pa. law:
Looks like he will eventually exhaust appeals due to missing a filing deadline:
I believe this was a removal from office, not removal from the ballot. In any event, the new elected commissioner is also a Republican.
Suppose Trump is elected and then removed from office. How I will feel depends on who the VP was.
As to the possibility that the VP would also be removed as an insurrectionist, giving us President Jeffries, dream on, That’s not happening.
That’s the state government, not federal.
But it would be state governments that decide whether to allow Trump on a ballot.
The guy disqualified for insurrection was at the capitol causing violence. Trump wasn’t. So I don’t know how clear a case you can make.
I fully believe Trump wanted them to riot. He used charged language, pointed them at a target, said they had to fight, this is war, they are stealing the presidency, etc. He knew they were armed but didn’t care because they weren’t there “to hurt him”. He knew they were going to hurt someone. He sat on his hands for hours and refused to tell them to stop after many people begged him to intervene. He eventually did and they dispersed, saying openly (on camera) that they were leaving because he said so.
But… It’s just not as clear as being on camera rioting. So, I dunno.
I don’t think the actual riot is the be all and end all of the whole “coup plot”. It’s definitely a major component, and it could be argued that while the Defendant was not there in person (he really, really, really wanted to be by all accounts) he was the one who called for the crowd, riled them up, pointed them at the capitol, and the one who stood to benefit from it. The general of the insurrection troops, if you will. But there were a whole lot of other ways he was trying to retain the Presidency in ways that betray the Constitution and the people of the United States.
Indeed, and in the Atlantic article, Luttig and Tribe specifically state:
The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.
It’s odd they use the term “bloodless,” since although Trump’s enablers like Eastman, Clark, et al, may have thought it could be accomplished without bloodshed, Trump was certainly inciting and expecting violence.
And, of course, in the event, “Five people died either shortly before, during, or following the event: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, and three died of natural causes.[24][33] Many people were injured, including 138 police officers. Four officers who responded to the attack died by suicide within seven months.[25]” Wikipedia.
The general election would be a federal matter. State primaries aren’t the only way for a candidate to be in the general election. There may be constitutional matters concerning state handling of primaries but not because primaries would exclude someone from running for president since they can still file as a candidate in the general election.
As others have said, there are no Federal elections. All elections are administered by state and local governments, even elections that include Federal offices, like President and Vice President (or more properly, the electors for the candidates for those offices). As such, it is usually state Secretaries of State who determine who is – or is not – included on ballots.
Voting in the presidential election is a constitutional right. Voting in a primary is not. States don’t have to conduct primaries at all. If your right to vote for the candidate of your choice for president in the actual presidential election is limited by the state you can take the matter directly to federal court. Primaries aren’t in the constitution. The issue isn’t about who administrates the ballots, it’s about a constitutional limitation placed on that administration that is not subject to state interpretation. This is even more absolute than some other voting rights which can be affected by state administration in other ways such as the division of electors. The whole point of this is that every US citizen eligible to vote for president has standing to bring the matter to federal court when it applies to the presidential election.
States don’t have to conduct primaries, but when they do, the fact that they’re not obligatory doesn’t give the state license to do whatever it wants. (If that was how it worked, presidential elections are also not obligatory.) A dispute over who could vote in primaries was one of the first big wins in the Supreme Court for the civil rights movement. The Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for states to discriminate when holding primaries.
It’s up to the state legislature, subject to the governor’s veto, how the electors are selected in any given state. Early on, some states had the state legislature pick the electors. I’m elitist enough to think this a good system (at least if the state legislature isn’t gerrymandered). Politicians would not have elected Donald Trump.
What a state cannot do is first have electors chosen in a popular election, and then reject that result because the Democratic ticket won. At least, I think that’s what the Electoral College Reform Act says. I can’t speak for how Justice Alito would rule.
cite, please?
I think you know how that has been established in the law. It’s a perfect case of the lack of an exception proves the rule through the 15th and 19th amendments to the constitution along with rulings that don’t allow discrimination in the voting process by the states. The civil right to vote is considered a foundation of American democracy, not absolutely spelled out, but so far enforced by the law.
Which is a different issue. This is a matter of who can invalidate a presidential candidate in the actual presidential election, not the pre-season games that just determine who represents a political party. Even if not allowed on a primary ballot that person can still run for president in that state in the general election. The SCOTUS could well decide that state officials could enforce the 14th arbitrarily if they want, but there is no such decision yet.
Once we entertain the idea that the SCOTUS could do anything at all for any reason or no reason, then politics simply becomes Calvinball.
It might be fun to talk about that scenario. It might even happen some day. But the one thing that makes no sense whatsoever (to me at least) is trying to reason about Calvinball.
I see a bunch of folks in the thread doing that, essentially arguing there’s an inexhaustible supply of wild cards. Then picking which ones they like then deducing a specific outcome from that pick as if it ordained by physics. It isn’t.
We do live in an era where existing boundaries have been and are being stretched. With a breaking point some unknown distance beyond the current stretch records. But if we’re to do any reasoning, as opposed to guessing, it needs to be done within the real rules and precedents as normally administered.