Posted on 02/05/2024 9:09:17 PM PST by TBP
In all states except Pennsylvania, a presidential nominee of a qualified party need not file any documents himself or herself to get on the November ballot. Instead, presidential nominees of qualified parties get on the general election ballot automatically. The state party officers send the names of that party’s presidential elector candidates to the state elections office, and the party’s certification also notifies the state of whom the electors are pledged to.
Challenges to former President Donald Trump this year, and last year, have been challenges to his appearance on presidential primary ballots. Generally, when a candidate must file some document, a state has a procedure for a voter to challenge that document based on the candidate’s eligibility. But there are no parallel laws by which a voter can challenge the certification document of a qualified party that names the elector candidates and reveals whom they are pledged to. Therefore, just because there is a state procedure to challenge someone’s appearance on a presidential primary ballot, it doesn’t follow that there is a procedure to challenge that same person’s general election ballot listing.
If the U.S. Supreme Court decides that the Colorado Supreme Court was correct to keep Trump off the March presidential primary ballot, based on Colorado state law on how primary candidates can be challenged, it doesn’t even follow that Trump (assuming he is the Republican nominee) can be kept off the November ballot in Colorado.
Of course, state legislatures could quickly pass bills that explicitly say a qualified party cannot submit any presidential elector candidates who say they are pledged to an ineligible presidential candidate. There is such a bill pending in the California legislature. Here is the text of SB 929, sponsored by State Senator David Min (D-Irvine).
There is also a Hawaii bill, SB 2392, by Senator Karl Rhoads (D-Honolulu). It has a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 6.
I don't think "they" have taken assassination off the table.
Just sayin', not advocating.
CW1 was followed by the assassination of the President, will CW2 be preceded by the same event?
History repeats or often mirrors...
What specific accomplishments?
“Not a chance Trump will lose. Not even close.”
You have not been paying attention.
Do you want to make a little wager that Trump will win the SCOTUS decision on appearing on the ballot despite state rulings to the contrary? $500? $1,000? $5,000?
I am prepared to put my money where my mouth is. Are you?
He loses if SCOTUS rules that elections are state matters.
The Democrats are unlikely to enjoy the Pandora's Box they opened that allow candidates to get stricken from ballots for any manufactured reason or for no good reason whatsoever and the damage this will do to the confidence in our electoral system is incalculable.
As it is, a full half the voting population will refuse to accept the outcome of 2024 regardless who wins.
I am
Interesting that you mention that because that’s exactly where my thoughts were going as I typed it. “If lawfare fails...”
Thanks. Oh I see what you meant. Good one…
It’s very easy to find. Use your search engine.
IOW, you can’t name them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.