On January 3, former President Donald Trump filed this cert petition in Anderson v Griswold, the Colorado ballot access case. It is not yet docketed on the U.S. Supreme Court website. Thanks to Democracy Docket for the link.
On January 3, former President Donald Trump filed this cert petition in Anderson v Griswold, the Colorado ballot access case. It is not yet docketed on the U.S. Supreme Court website. Thanks to Democracy Docket for the link.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-keep-him-on-2024-colorado-ballot/
SB on Trump pet cert
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/8-ways-to-protect-american-democracy/
ONE MORE DEMOCRACY REPORT
—-
PR
APP
TOTSOP
https://democracyfund.org/idea/democracy-hypocrisy/
HMMM — USA NOW LIKE COMMIES VS FASCISTS IN EUROPE 1919-1939 ???
ESP —
MUSSOLINI 1922 ITALY
HITLER 1933 GERMANY
FRANCO 1939 SPAIN
It is falsely asserted that states have plenary power to decide which persons may appear on government ballots because Article I, Section Four says “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” They neglect the following clause, “but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.” It is textually clear, the ultimate regulatory authority of elections is the Congress of the United States. Congress has made no laws empowering states to prohibit voters from using state ballots to vote for any person they prefer even if such person does not meet constitutional qualifications. And even assuming the insurrection clause added a qualification of not being an insurrectionist, the Congress has not authorized states to enforce such “disqualification” and the Congress may remove such state imposed “disability” by law at any time even after states have certified their election returns. Will the Congress act before November 2024 to affirm its jurisdiction in Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment to determine how, if at all, Section Three shall be enforced?
The U.S. Supreme Court before the election may well decide that since Congress has not yet acted to enforce Section Three, any state action to enforce Section Three violates Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment and is null and void.
Congress’s election authority also extends to elections by voters of presidential electors since those offices appear on state ballots and Electors are no longer chosen by state legislatures.
14-3 AMDT IS ENFORCED VIA 28 USC 1331 — USA DIST CT JURISDICTION SECTION
STATE COURTS ARE NOT 3-1 USA/FEDERAL COURTS
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OFFENSES AND DEFENSES IN STATE [AND USA/FED ] COURTS-
IF A USA/FED DEFENSE IS CLAIMED IN A STATE COURT THAT IS DENIED – THEN APPEAL TO USA COURT.
@DFR,
Are you claiming that the 1788-9 elections for Congress were not valid because they had not been authorized by Congress?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rfk-jr-cost-ballot-140837255.html
RFKJR- — mere $$$ 15 million for ballot access ???
—
PROPER 14-1 EP CL CASE – UNDER 200 K ???
NOTING 1954 BROWN V BD OF ED – SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL
JR –
SEE RESOLVE OF 1787 FED CONV 17 SEP 1787 — LAST DAY OF FED CONV.
ONE OF THE LAST ACTS OF THE OLDE 1775-1789 CONGRESSES WAS TO SET 4 MAR 1789 START DATE FOR THE NEW USA REGIME VIA THE 1787 CONST. — AFTER 9 STATES HAD RATIFIED CONST- ART 7.
1787 CONST —
1-2-3 INITIAL USA REPS IN STATES – 65 [1ST AND 2ND CONGRESSES 1789-1792 ]
1-3-2 INITIAL USA SENS- 3 CLASSES
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/294892/20240104135300932_20240103_Trump_v_Anderson__Cert_Petition%20FINAL.pdf
23-719 TRUMP PET CERT — CO SCT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
2020 12 AMDT FAKE ELECTORS PLOT — LOW HUNDREDS OF FELONS – VIA FELON FAKE PAPERWORK ???
ON TOP OF THE 6 JAN 2021 CAPITOL BLDG IN PERSON INVADERS / FELONS
HOW MANY NEW FED JAILS NEEDED ???
https://www.yahoo.com/news/first-major-u-offshore-wind-214258191.html
WHAT SAYETH WHALES AND THEIR TROLL MORON SUPPORTERS ???
@Jim Riley, there was no 14th Amendment in the Articles of Confederation. What point are you trying to make?
There was also no printed ballot for another century , and the 14th amendment was 80 years away.
Electors should be chosen by state legislatures.
@DFR,
You are ignoring the “but” and “may” in Article 1, Section 4.
It is mandatory (shall) for the legislature of each State to prescribe the times, places, and manner of election for Congress.
Congress may (but are not required to) alter those regulations.
Congress does not have to *empower* States to exclude ineligible candidates. The States have that authority. Congress *could* require States to exclude ineligible candidates from the ballot, or it could require States to include ineligible candidates from the ballot.
Congress has not enacted any such law.
The first elections to Congress occurred prior to the first meeting of The Congress. How could The Congress which had not been instantiated at that time impose any regulations.
@Who,
There were ballots with machine-printed names as early as 1829.
There were none in 1788-9. No state government printed ballots until the 1888 election. Privately printed ballots were not my point, since there would have been no question of excluding ineligible candidates.
Thus, there could not have been any question about ineligible candidates on ballots before state printed ballots.
@Who,
States could have used the Australian ballot in 1788.
Do you believe a vote for a non-person would have been counted in 1788? Are you sure that unqualified persons were counted? If by viva voce was made for Benedict Arnold would it have been counted?
I’m not sure, except that there were no states with Australian ballot in 1788. I’m not sure who would have made a determination of who was or wasn’t eligible back then, but it probably wouldn’t have been 11 months ahead of the election
@Who,
We’re getting sidetracked. I mentioned 1788/89 since that was prior to when the Congress could have “authorized” States to disqualify congressional candidates.
Under Article 1, Section 4, the Congress *could*:
(a) Require States to not place ineligible candidates on congressional ballots;
(b) Require States to not deny a place on congressional ballots for ineligible candidates;
(c) Do neither (a) or (b), deferring to the States.
Congress *has* done (c).
Only if you’re using the royal we. I haven’t seen where states disqualified anyone in 1788-9. But even supposing they had, unless it was prior to election in November, it’s not quite a relevant analogy. Given that we now have state ballots and state run primaries, the question of qualifications assumes a dimension it couldn’t have them.
Richard Winger and others have posted a variety of reasons why candidates, and especially presidential candidates, can’t be disqualified from ballots, even if they can be disqualified from office.
In cases where the latter determination is controversial, its manner as well as timing matter. If it has not yet been conclusively determined, and in the case of President determined nationally, the presumption should be in favor of allowing votes, even if you don’t hold as I do, that voting for ineligible candidates is protected expressive activity and that taking it away diminishes the right to vote for some voters.
@Who,
DFR claimed that under Article 1, Section 4 that a state could not disqualify candidates without being _authorized_ by Congress. It is ridiculous to suggest that Congress could use its plenary power before it existed.
I assume you agree that States may set the time, place, manner regulations for congressional elections. These are subject to override by Congress. For example, Congress has established a uniform election date, but that was nearly 100 years after the first elections. Congress has also required use of paper ballots. Surely, you are not going to suggest that prior to 1872 that States could not use viva voce election or hold elections on alternate dates.
Texas has prior to its institution of the Australian ballot in 1905, required that when the votes are canvassed, that an ineligible or deceased candidate can not be certified as being elected. Once elections by Australian ballot were introduced an ineligibility requirement prior to being placed on the ballot was added.
A candidate in a primary for Congress can not be placed on the ballot if they are not 25 years of age, or a US citizen for seven years. However, this has been interpreted to mean when the representative took the oath of office. Presumably, a candidate who could be 25 and a citizen for seven years by January 3, 2027 could be placed on the primary ballot.
This would not stop that from being a political issue: “the kid won’t be able to serve until the term is practically over.” This is similar to the argument about a candidate who doesn’t live in the district, or even the State.
Richard Winger is wrong about his claim that candidates can not be disqualified from ballots due to ineligibility.
A state can clearly disqualify candidates from taking office. Whether it can disqualify the name of a candidate as a label for a slate of presidential electors from appearing on ballots is a separate question. I think Richard Winger is correct.