Fogbow

After the trial kicked off Monday, Judge Sarah Wallace quickly rejected an effort from Trump's legal team to have her recused from the case, the Associated Press reported.

Trump's attorneys had filed a motion calling for Wallace to recuse herself from the case due to an alleged $100 donation to the Colorado Turnout Project in October 2022. The PAC's website reads that it is focused on defeating Trump ally Representative Lauren Boebert and "electing Democrats across Colorado."

"The Colorado Turnout Project aims to prevent violent insurrections by addressing this problem at its source– if we vote out pariahs like Representative Boebert, we can turn CO Blue once and for all," the organization's website reads.

Wallace, appointed by Democratic Governor Jared Polis, declined to recuse herself. She said she does not remember that donation and has no preconceptions about the issues at stake.

"I will not allow this legal proceeding to turn into a circus," Wallace said as the hearing began, the AP reported.

A Legal Lohengrin
Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:05 pm

BTW, does anyone here know how "Grinols" is pronounced?

I pronounce it "Moron" with a silent "Grinols."

poplove wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 8:24 pm Lawfare has launched the Trump Disqualification Tracker:

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-pr ... on-tracker

"Beginning with a case in Florida in February 2023, voters and advocacy groups have brought many Section 3 challenges in state and federal courts across the country, attempting to block Trump’s name from appearing on ballots for state primaries and caucuses before the national election begins. This page is intended to track which states have active Section 3 litigation to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot. At the bottom is a selected reading of Lawfare's coverage on the issue. Note that the procedural posture and legal theories behind these challenges vary greatly, and a dismissal in any particular action does not necessarily bar other challenges from being brought in that same state."

Arizona Republican Party @AZGOP wrote: BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL REMAIN ON THE BALLOT IN ARIZONA!

The court case is over, the
@AZGOP
wins the day! As said by Chairman DeWit
@jeffdewitaz
“Republican voters will choose our nominee, not the Democrats."

If you want to win back the White House from the Biden regime and return it to Republican control, please chip in to help us secure the most important swing state in the country by clicking here: http://azgop.com/elephant-clubs

#AZGOP #WinBackTheWhiteHouse

Arizona Republican Party @AZGOP wrote: BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL REMAIN ON THE BALLOT IN ARIZONA!

The court case is over, the
@AZGOP
wins the day! As said by Chairman DeWit
@jeffdewitaz
“Republican voters will choose our nominee, not the Democrats."

Castro alleges that he “will suffer a concrete competitive injury” in the form of “a diminution of votes and/or fundraising” if Trump appears on Arizona’s Presidential Preference Election ballot. (Doc. 1 ¶ 21.) “[A] candidate or his political party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate’s or party’s own chances of prevailing in the election.” Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 782 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63, 68 (D.N.H. 2008)). Because the injury unpinning competitive standing is the potential loss of an election, however, the plaintiff must genuinely be competing with the allegedly ineligible candidate. See Grinols v. Electoral College, No. 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD, 2013 WL 2294885, at *8 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2013). For example, a plaintiff cannot establish competitive standing merely by self-declaring as a write-in candidate, even though write-in candidates theoretically compete with those whose names appear on the ballot. Sibley v. Obama, No. 12-5198, 2012 WL 6603088, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 6, 2012). If a cognizable injury could be manufactured so easily, then “any citizen could obtain standing (in violation of Article III of the U.S. Constitution) by merely ‘selfdeclaring[.]’” Id.

MeidasTouch @MeidasTouch wrote: This was an actual comment made by Trump's lawyer today in the 14th Amendment case in Colorado as Trump's lawyers sought to challenge the definition of an insurrection:

Trump lawyer: Now you're gonna tell me, "Mr. Gessler, you're making it up." And I'm going to say, "Well so did the judge." And I'll say, "We're all sort of making it up at the end of the day."

bob wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 8:05 pm "For completeness," the SoSoME's decision.

There's some shade thrown at the aggrieved's lawyers. My favorite is when the aggrieved (somehow) wanted res judicata from the COAoCO's ruling, but the SoSoME presumed he would withdraw the request in the light of SCOCO's ruling.

A McCain birther challenge gets a shoutout in a footnote, but none of the greatest hits like we saw in Colorado.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2023 1:19 am Gotta txt from Kari Lake, she’s on it.
IMG_6844.png

Resume18 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2023 10:58 am

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2023 1:19 am Gotta txt from Kari Lake, she’s on it.
IMG_6844.png

Oh look, a pair of losers.

The Democratic lieutenant governor had called for him to be ruled ineligible.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber has kept Donald Trump on the 2024 Republican primary ballot despite calls from the state's Democratic lieutenant governor to consider declaring him ineligible under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Thursday was the deadline for Weber, also a Democrat, to certify the official candidate list for California's March 5, 2024, presidential primary election.

* * *

Weber has not yet issued an explanation of her decision to include the former president, despite acknowledging last week that she would address the legal questions surrounding the removal of Trump from the GOP primary ballot as requested by Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis.

* * *

Responding to Kounalakis' request, Weber noted that because the issue is of particular concern to the public, she was obligated to address it within legal parameters and in the best interests of all California voters.

"It is incumbent upon my office to ensure that any action undertaken regarding any candidate's inclusion or omission from our ballots be grounded firmly in the laws and processes in place in California and our Constitution," Weber said.