14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot

[Sam the Centipede]

I dunno anything about US constitutional history, but I wondered if the federal electors thing was partly because it's such a large country that coordinating a country-wide scale election would be complex, difficult, and open to abuse by electoral officers?

Of course it also biases the vote against large states, so the winner of the popular vote does not automatically gain crown - as everybody knows only too well!

Other federal elections for senate and congress are state-wide, the electorate is (I assume) the same as voting for governors, etc. So there's no coordination required about state level.

If it is intended to be a mechanism against populism, it has clearly misfired because it gives disproportionate weight to the low information, gullible, populist-friendly votes in small states, Wyoming, etc.

[RVInit]

I don't understand why, if Colorado says he can't run in that state, that has to mean he can't run in all states. Different states have different rules even though it's a national election. And, yes, I have always thought that a national election should have national rules that all states comply with. Felons can't vote in some states; in most states they can. I don't know that that has ever been an issue.

I understand the state's rights argument, but I think that's largely a bullshit argument and has been since at least the Civil War.

The biggest reason that it would scare the shit out of me to allow the federal government to establish procedures for elections is that at some point Republicans will once again have the White House, House, and Senate. No thank you. Elections should continue to be run locally.

[Rolodex]

I've wondered how it would work if the electoral votes were decided proportionately. If a state has a super close vote; the GOP (for example) candidate gets only a few thousand more votes than the D candidate, why not divide the electoral votes in the same proportion. If a state has 12 electoral votes and one candidate gets 60% and the other 40%, then give the 60% person 7 (or 8 if you want to round up) electors and the rest to the 40% person. I guess there wouldn't be a "magic" number of 270 any more - just the most electoral people.

I haven't mathed that out by looking at states' voting histories so it might be a big mistake. It won't happen anyway, but if we're stuck with the electoral college, then we can fantasize about anything.

[realist]

So I suppose once the SCOTUS opinion comes down on the CO case we no longer have an Office of the President.

I was always told by my dad that you don't have to respect the president but you do have to respect the Office of the president.

[Suranis]

So I suppose once the SCOTUS opinion comes down on the CO case we no longer have an Office of the President.

I was always told by my dad that you don't have to respect the president but you do have to respect the Office of the president.

No less than Theodore Roosevelt said it best.

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

Kansas City Star (7 May 1918)

[raison de arizona]

XPOST

What's good for the goose...

CO Sec. of State Jena Griswold (D) hits SCOTUS suggestion that Trump should stay on the ballot because one state shouldn’t determine a federal election:

“Every single state that's tried to restrict the vote for electoral gain … should be susceptible to this line of argument.”

[RTH10260]

Revealed: rightwinger Leonard Leo linked to efforts to keep Trump on ballot
Federalist Society co-chair has ties to the groups arguing in the US supreme court case that Trump should stay on the Colorado ballot

Rachel Leingang
Fri 9 Feb 2024 12.00 CET

The man behind the conservative effort to move the judiciary to the right has ties to many of the groups and people arguing that Donald Trump should stay on the ballot in a case heard before the US supreme court this week.

Leonard Leo’s advocacy and financial network played a major role in Trump’s judicial nominations and confirmation hearings as part of his years-long push to make the courts more friendly to conservatives and their causes. Justice Clarence Thomas once joked that Leo was the “No 3 most powerful person in the world”.

Leo is the co-chairman of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization that counts five of the current nine justices as current or former members. He also heads a well-funded financial network that works to advance rightwing causes, having received a massive $1.6bn donation to boost his work. His maneuvers have been part of the recent scandals at the supreme court, including a payment he directed to be paid to Thomas’s wife, Ginni, the Washington Post reported in 2023.

Through this extensive network, he is tied to several of the filers of amicus briefs in the 14th amendment case that could prevent Trump from running for re-election. In those briefs, a variety of conservative groups argue against Trump’s removal, aligning with Trump’s arguments that he should remain on the ballot.

The consequential case has brought in amicus briefs on both sides from outside groups, historians, law professors and elected officials, who’ve parsed through legal language and the implications of removing a presidential candidate from the running.

According to research by Accountable.US, a non-profit that focuses on calling attention to special interests in US politics, Leo has ties – including professional associations, funding through his own groups or those he’s exchanged money with, and allies in the Federalist Society – to a handful of groups that filed amicus briefs against Trump’s removal.

The ties are part of a pattern, documented by Politico, of Leo himself and his network being connected to amicus briefs in high-profile supreme court cases in recent years. The Politico review also found “multiple instances of language used in the amicus briefs appearing in the court’s opinions”.



https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/fe ... reme-court

[Sam the Centipede]

Counterfactual thought experiments can be insightful: imagine a leading Democrat politician, later viable presidential candidate, had been involved in an angry demonstration, say for civil rights, abortion, or gun control, that went very nasty and violent (for whatever reason, perhaps police overreaction). The Democrat politician might have given a strong speech, but not have committed anything obviously illegal acts. Is there any doubt that right-wingers would be screaming and their lawyers would be advocating for the candidate's exclusion from the ballot, even saying that states are legally compelled to exclude the candidate, on grounds of attempted insurrection?

So, yes, this is all political theater and will show the shallowness of the biased Supreme Court appointees as they work from verdict backwards.

[much ado]

I think you have a point there.

[neeneko]

I haven't mathed that out by looking at states' voting histories so it might be a big mistake. It won't happen anyway, but if we're stuck with the electoral college, then we can fantasize about anything.

If I recall correctly, when the math was done it gave the democrats a big boost, so all the states where republicans need the winner take all to keep in power would not change.

[bob]

I haven't mathed that out by looking at states' voting histories so it might be a big mistake. It won't happen anyway, but if we're stuck with the electoral college, then we can fantasize about anything.

If I recall correctly, when the math was done it gave the democrats a big boost, so all the states where republicans need the winner take all to keep in power would not change.

Yeah, it does. Which is why the proposed compact won't happen.

The Electoral College is baked in because the small states have no incentive to vote for an amendment to repeal it.

[roadscholar]

On the other hand, the MAGAts have argued that it's possible for State Legislatures to direct Presidential Electors. So it follows that Colorado (or any State) could let T.Rump on the ballot, but if he garners any electors, the legislature could direct them to vote for Biden.

Heh.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

On the other hand, the MAGAts have argued that it's possible for State Legislatures to direct Presidential Electors. So it follows that Colorado (or any State) could let T.Rump on the ballot, but if he garners any electors, the legislature could direct them to vote for Biden.

Heh.

[neeneko]

The Electoral College is baked in because the small states have no incentive to vote for an amendment to repeal it.

I think at this point it isn't small states that want it, but instead large states with diffuse rural populations since it helps dominate the larger urban population.

[bob]

The Electoral College is baked in because the small states have no incentive to vote for an amendment to repeal it.

I think at this point it isn't small states that want it, but instead large states with diffuse rural populations since it helps dominate the larger urban population.

Small states are the disproportionate winners because they get two senators. In both the Senate and in the Electoral College, small states get to punch above their weight.

With the added bonus that fewer rural voters get to dictate to larger population of urban dwellers.

[neeneko]

Small states are the disproportionate winners because they get two senators. In both the Senate and in the Electoral College, small states get to punch above their weight.

With the added bonus that fewer rural voters get to dictate to larger population of urban dwellers.

I get that, but I do not think where the push comes from right now. Today it seems to be a bigger deal in states with rural/urban divides since it lets rural voters add the urban votes to their own.

[bob]

Today it seems to be a bigger deal in states with rural/urban divides since it lets rural voters add the urban votes to their own.

The desire to retain the Electoral College is motivated by the weight it gives to voters of smaller-in-population (mostly rural) states. (Ditto with the Senate.)

The two most populous states, California and Texas, have huge rural areas. But, statewide (and especially in California), those rural areas are controlled by those clustered in relatively few urban areas.

[Res Ipsa]

an angry demonstration, say for civil rights, abortion, or gun control, that went very nasty and violent (for whatever reason, perhaps police overreaction).

Unless the "angry demonstration" which became "nasty and violent" was directed at overthrowing the government, I don't see how you are equating that with an "insurrection."

An insurrection is not merely some kind of nasty and violent activity, and need not even be violent.

The January 6th event is deemed and "insurrection" because it was precisely aimed at overturning the result of an election.

People can riot, loot, burn, whatever, to their heart's content, but that doesn't make it an insurrection.

We've already seen Madge Traitor Three-names calling anything and everything an "insurrection", and it's just silly.

[Sam the Centipede]

I am not equating the two, not at all. I was pointing out that RWers would call such an event an "insurrection" (whether it be or not) and scream for barring anybody and everybody even slightly connected to it from candidature for federal offices.

[p0rtia]

They're already doing that.

[raison de arizona]

[Res Ipsa]

RWers would call such an event an "insurrection"

This video clip is a riot:

Screenshot 2024-02-12 at 2.41.12 PM.png (106.81 KiB) Viewed 276 times

Screenshot 2024-02-12 at 2.41.00 PM.png (260.84 KiB) Viewed 276 times

Screenshot 2024-02-12 at 2.40.48 PM.png (203.05 KiB) Viewed 276 times

Screenshot 2024-02-12 at 2.40.21 PM.png (226.39 KiB) Viewed 276 times

[Maybenaut]

Unanimous Per curiam (unsigned, but no dissents) ruling -Trump stays on the ballot

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... -decision/

ETA: Link to the decision

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_19m2.pdf

[AndyinPA]

No surprise.

[Maybenaut]

I should add, Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor concurred in the judgment- they agreed that a State cannot remove a candidate for national office from the ballot. But they thought the majority went too far by addressing things beyond that yes-or-no question.