Even if Trump Loses in U.S. Supreme Court, It Will be Difficult to Keep Him Off General Election Ballots

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.


Comments

Even if Trump Loses in U.S. Supreme Court, It Will be Difficult to Keep Him Off General Election Ballots — 20 Comments

  1. Color me skeptical of the above claims. Again, note for other real commenters here, I’m not a Democrat, and I have talked here before about the “ripeness” issue, among other things.

    Nonetheless, color me skeptical about the above claims, because I’m skeptical of Winger’s baseline claim this is all anti-democratic, because we have other laws that state candidacy requirements and more.

  2. OR- P.R. IN OR CONST NOT ENFORCED

    ONE MORE STATE IN SECESSION/CIVIL WAR MODE


    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

  3. Haven’t other states in some cases kept ineligible presidential candidates off the general election ballot? Were none of them nominated by a qualified party?

  4. Will Thomas Jones see his shadow tomorrow and crawl back into his hole? If so, someone in Detroit please dump a pile of dirt on it!! … with some concrete and rebar added. Thank you.

  5. The only instance when a ballot-qualified party was told it couldn’t have its presidential nominee on the ballot was in Californian in 1968, when Secretary of State Frank Jordan refused to list Eldridge Cleaver. But he did put Cleaver’s candidates for presidential elector on the ballot. The November 1968 California ballot for the Peace & Freedom Party listed no one for president, but Peggy Terry for vice-president, and voters could vote for that ticket. Over 27,000 of them did so.

  6. TROLL MORONS HAVE NO BRAINS AND NO SHADOWS —

    JUST LIKE THE VAMPIRE MONSTERS THEY LOVE — ESP BIDEN AND TRUMP

  7. @AZ,

    Article II, Section 16 of the Oregon is permissive, and only applies to multi-member districts. The Oregon legislature is elected from single member districts.

    What do say about Article II, Section 15 being applied?

  8. OR 1898 — MIRACLE – VOTER PETS FOR STATE CONST AMDTS

    HOW MANY OR ST CON AMDTS SINCE 1898 ???
    ——–
    HOW MANY GROWING ARMIES OF FOLKS AT TX-MEX BORDER ???

  9. OR CONST [SPACING ADDED]

    II- Section 16. Election by plurality; proportional representation.

    In all elections authorized by this constitution until otherwise provided by law, the person or persons receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected, but provision may be made by law for elections by equal proportional representation of all the voters for every office which is filled by the election of two or more persons whose official duties, rights and powers are equal and concurrent.

    Every qualified elector resident in his precinct and registered as may be required by law, may vote for one person under the title for each office.

    Provision may be made by law for the voter’s direct or indirect expression of his first, second or additional choices among the candidates for any office.

    For an office which is filled by the election of one person it may be required by law that the person elected shall be the final choice of a majority of the electors voting for candidates for that office.

    These principles may be applied by law to nominations by political parties and organizations.

    [Constitution of 1859; Amendment proposed by initiative petition filed Jan. 29, 1908, and adopted by the people June 1, 1908]
    —-
    MOST *PROGRESSIVE* REFORMS WERE KILLED OFF BY WW I – 1917-1918 [USA] AS BEING *UN-AMERICAN*.

    THUS THE NONSTOP ROT FROM PLURALITY EXTREMISTS AND MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDERS — PRODUCING THE CURRENT CIVIL WAR II MODE

    JR — DO OR LEGISLATURE HACKS HAVE YES/NO VOTING E SYSTEMS AS IN MOST STATES ???

    WHEN DID USA H REPS GET E VOTES IN THE CHAMBER ???

  10. Jim: why not? Illegal invaders, bots, vote harvesters, and commie Chinese hackers in outer Mongolia are allowed to vote in US elections. So are underage retards, space aliens, dead people, etc. Why discrimination against our 4+ legged friends, single cell organisms, et al? So unfair!

  11. Self referencing az bot comment Feb 1 at 716 pm : exactly, you don’t, other than the ridiculous false inclusion of Trump in your null set.

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.