On September 26, the U.S. Supreme Court docketed Ayyadurai v New Jersey Democratic Committee, 24-342. The issue is whether Shiva Ayyadurai, an independent presidential candidate who was born in India, should have been left on the New Jersey ballot. He had enough valid signatures but was removed because of Article Two qualifications. However, five times in the past, New Jersey has printed the names of presidential and vice-presidential candidates who were either under age 35 or who were not born in the United States.
Here is the filing.
Ayyadurai had filed the case with the U.S. Supreme Court on September 20. It is odd that the court took so long to put it on the docket.
Counting ineligible candidates in the past doesn’t mean they should be allowed in the future. That’s like getting a speeding ticket and saying “but I do it all the time!”
The true candidates in November are the candidates for presidential elector, and Ayyadurai’s electors met all the qualifications.
Sorry, Richard, but those electors would be (if selected) voting for an ineligible person.
Per Mr. Spock: “A difference that makes no difference IS no difference.”
(But, this is another good reason to get rid of the electoral college; we get rid of such Jesuitical parsing, as well.)
It shouldn’t be up to secretaries of state or state courts to determine who is or isn’t an ineligible person ahead of ballot printing. That should be up to congress in accepting or not accepting electoral votes.
20-3 AMDT — FED QUALIFS OF PREZ/VP
There are obviously cases where interpretation differs, given the number of lawsuits about whether this or that person is eligible this year as well as in past years.
Just Me is Robert K Stock.
If the electors were elected, we don’t know for sure whom they would vote for. In 2016 there were 7 disobedient electors. There were also 3 other electors who were booted when they cast a disobedient vote.