One Amicus in Trump Ballot Access Case Depends on the Ninth Amendment

Posted on by January 18, 2024

One of the amici in the Trump Colorado ballot access in the U.S. Supreme Court argues that tne Ninth Amendment protects the right to vote for the candidate of one’s choice.  See it here.  It is filed by 3,000 voters, including some voters from every state.

The Ninth Amendment says, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Comments

One Amicus in Trump Ballot Access Case Depends on the Ninth Amendment — 12 Comments

  1. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/18/kristina-karamo-gop-faction-sends-cease-and-desist-letters-to-opponents-michigan-republican-party/72270015007/

    Karamo faction of Michigan GOP sends cease and desist letters to Republican opponents
    Beth LeBlancCraig Mauger
    The Detroit News
    Lansing — A faction of the Michigan Republican Party led by Chairwoman Kristina Karamo said Thursday it has issued cease and desist letters to eleven Republicans that allege defamation of character, trademark infringement and copyright infringement of the Michigan GOP title.
    Three letters signed by Karamo, Michigan GOP executive director James M. Copas and lawyer Daniel J. Hartman demand that Karamo dissidents stop using the state party’s trademarks, accused them of violating copyrights and demand they stop defaming the trio or face litigation.
    —

    MICH GOP MORE BLOWN UP THAN MICH LPM ???

    GOVT COURTS TO DECIDE — RATHER THAN INTERNAL PARTY JUDICS ???

    SEE PUBLIC COURTS DECIDING INTERNAL RELIGION FACTIONS STUFF.

  5. Would the application of the principle not mean that people have a right to cast write-in votes? If people have a right to vote FOR THE CANDIDATE OF THEIR CHOICE, would that not mean that if a candidate’s name is NOT printed on the ballot, they MUST have a right to WRITE-IN their candidate’s name?

  7. A ballot, which a state with a monopoly of publishing, that is structured by law to print only the names of some candidates while also excluding other announced candidates cannot be a valid instrument for the citizen to exercise the fundamental right to vote. Under a proper application of the Ninth and Tenth Amendment, all ballot access laws which effect censorship of the voter’s freedom to choose are unconstitutional, null and void notwithstanding past errors of precedent.

  8. Ballot Access discussed in briefs

    I found mention of ballot access in these Trump case briefs: 20240117125930443_Printer Ready Final.pdf (one mention); 20240117170813818_No. 23-719_Brief.pdf (one mention in footnote); 20240118093419790_Amicus Brief.pdf (three mentions); 20240118094034746_Trump v Anderson.pdf (one mention); 20240118112848137_23-719.Amicus.Foley.Ginsburg.Hasen.pdf (one mention); 202540118120315947_23-719 tsac KSGOP-PDFA.pdf (two mentions); 20240118122740839_23-719 Amicus Brief.pdf (one mention); 20240118122952556_23-719 NYCBA NPAC Br.pdf (one mention); 20240118132017823_23-719 tsac Daines.pdf (six mentions); 20240118133922820_23-719 tsac RNC and NRCC PDFA.pdf (two mentions); 20240118142237991_2024-01-18 Amicus Br. – US Term Limits – PDFA.pdf (one mention); 20240118144154284_Trump v. Anderson – SOS Br. Amici Curiae – SCOTUS.pdf (two mentions); 202411816309473_Trump v. Anderson amicus brief.pdf (one mention); 202401118165009403_23-719 tsac CFC.pdf (two mentions); 20240118171750343_Trump v Anderson Petitioner Brief on the Merits.pdf (two mentions).

    Forty-one amici briefs were filed by the January 18 deadline. Fifteen amici briefs mention the term ballot access and a few give cursory discussion of a limited right of states to police or restrict candidates access to the ballot (voters). Twenty-six briefs do not address ballot access as a relevant issue in the Trump case.

    My survey of the texts of these briefs that even take cognizance of ballot access accept the precedents that voters are not the vital decision-maker in determining elections outcomes, but must be shepherded away from candidates the dominant partisans construe to voters as frivolous or lacking a modicum of support and only clutter the ballot for vanity. In other words, none of the briefs ask the SCOTUS do any heavy lifting to protect the voter’s right to chose.

  10. Walter and Frank, Thanks for some sanity on this thread. You make some valid points.

  11. @Walter
    I completely agree.

    @DFR
    Thank you for your research. I’m thinking that when people say cluttered ballots cause “voter confusion”, what they mean is that when there are more than two candidates, voters have to think whether they should vote strategically or vote true. That’s a pretty lame reason to restrict the ballot. There are better alternatives.

  12. @AC,

    When politicians say “ballot crowding” or “voter confusion” they mean the SCOTUS has ruled that a legislature may use the flimsiest post hoc rationalization for ballot access barriers, and that the legislature need not demonstrate any actual effect, nor can opponents prove that the right to vote is abridged.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.