On September 6, some Colorado voters filed a lawsuit in state court to bar former President Donald Trump from the March 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot. Anderson v Griswold, state district court, Denver. See the filing here. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link.
Lawyers who file these kinds of frivolous junk lawsuits should be fined and disbarred.
Their clients should be publicly whipped on their genitals.
It seems to me that the explicit language of Section 3 does not bar anyone from running for office, only holding office, once elected.
So, technically, a person deemed in violation of Section 3 COULD get elected to office, and Congress then COULD remove the disability by a 2/3s vote.
I agree with you, Walter, and I am sorry that academics aren’t discussing that idea.
Also, it COULD happen that, if in January a candidate for President deemed in violation of Section 3, COULD be disqualified by having his electoral votes voided by the Electoral Count Act.
Also, it COULD happen that there are insufficient votes in either or both Houses in January to overturn Trump’s electoral votes, even if he has a majority thereof, BUT ALSO, insufficient votes to remove his disability, if deemed to be disqualified under Section 3, BUT by WHOM?
At the very least, IMO, no one should be disqualified under Section 3 without an explicit judicial conviction.
Or, without a conviction for impeachment by Congress, which is also an automatic disqualifier for holding office.
Which, BTW, IMO, can be obtained AFTER a person has left office, for the explicit purpose of barring that person from holding office in the future.
This idea is among the dumbest I ever heard. Trump wanted 10,000 national guard in place ahead of J6. Cryptkeeper Pelosi nixed it. Trump called on his supporters to protest peacefully. When a small percentage didn’t, he called on them to stop. Trump was acquitted in the J6 phony impeachment.
The politically motivated, legally laughable Smith indictment is not a conviction. If state secretaries of state or legislators can disqualify Trump, other state secretaries of state or legislators can disqualify Beijing Biden or his electors for treason, bribery, corruption, etc. No conviction needed, right?
A similar suit was filed in Maine on Sept. 5th:
PDF of the filing: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23941592/castro-trump-maine-2024-ballot-lawsuit.pdf
Bangor Daily News report:
BDN Report: https://www.bangordailynews.com/2023/09/07/politics/read-lawsuit-donald-trump-maine-ballot-disqualify/
In Texas, a candidate may be kept off the ballot if they are ineligible for a particular office.
On their application are included the facts to determine whether they are eligible, as well as a sworn oath that they are.
The officer accepting the application is not required to investigate, but when presented with evidence can be compelled to omit the candidate from the ballot.
Some years back there was a proposal that party candidates for president be required to file for the general election ballot (as independent candidates are). This would have permitted a challenge of Barack Obama’s eligibility.
But I don’t see how this would apply to a presidential preference primary. What Colorado Republicans do with respect to selection of delegates is their own business.
CRIMINAL CONVICTION OF INSURRECTION/REBELLION REQUIRED IN 14-3 AMDT
SEE JULY 1862 ACT.
CRIMES SPECIFIED IN USA CONST –
TREASON 3-3
INSURRECTION/REBELLION 1-8-15, 14-3 AMDT, 14-4 AMDT
Civil Rights for Whites makes an excellent point.