Timeline for Can states refuse to put a candidate on a ballot?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7, 2023 at 21:51 | comment | added | ohwilleke | @Barmar A SCOTUS ruling on the merits would apply to all states. But if SCOTUS were to deny cert on the first petition to it ruling against Trump, the issue would never be a in position to be heard by SCOTUS in a later case. | |
| Nov 7, 2023 at 21:18 | comment | added | Barmar | @ohwilleke It seems likely that any determination in a state court will be appealed to SCOTUS, and I assume their ruling will then apply to all states. | |
| Nov 7, 2023 at 21:10 | comment | added | ohwilleke | @ouflak The key point is that if a court makes a final determination that someone is not qualified to run for President based upon Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, he can't re-litigate that determination to get a different result in a different state's courts. | |
| Nov 7, 2023 at 21:09 | comment | added | ohwilleke | @Barmar The practical grass roots political impact of excluding someone from the ballot v. denying the office to a first place finisher are huge (and also greatly influences the GOP primary process). | |
| Nov 7, 2023 at 19:12 | comment | added | Bobson | @ouflak - It's derived from the specific qualification for holding any office in the 14th amendment. Section 3 should be read as an additional requirement applied to every other office mentioned in the Constitution. Someone who met the age and residency requirements and not the "not a rebel" requirement is exactly as disqualified as someone who meets the age and "not a rebel" requirements but not the residency one. It's not one overriding the other. | |
| Nov 7, 2023 at 17:38 | comment | added | ouflak | @ohwilleke, "The finding that he is not qualified to run for President as a matter of federal law would bind him." So would this be derived from the specific qualifications for president listed in the Constitution (age and residency), or would such a ruling override those qualifications? | |
| Nov 7, 2023 at 16:37 | comment | added | Barmar | If the candidate is not eligible to hold the office, does it matter if they're on the ballot? Votes for them will effectively be nullified. Also note that we don't actually vote for the candidate, we vote for electors. | |
| Nov 7, 2023 at 2:12 | comment | added | ohwilleke | There is a decent argument that if e.g., Trump were to lose the Section 3 argument in a finally litigated case in Colorado (either not taken up by SCOTUS by cert, or affirmed by SCOTUS on cert) that the collateral estoppel effect of this ruling would keep him off the ballot in every state where a Section 3 argument is raised. The finding that he is not qualified to run for President as a matter of federal law would bind him. | |
| Nov 6, 2023 at 23:47 | comment | added | Gerard Ashton | @jeffronicus another level at which the issue could be contested is after the vote count. Even if not on the ballot, it is possible for a candidate to win through write-in votes. | |
| Nov 6, 2023 at 22:16 | history | edited | Jen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Nov 6, 2023 at 22:12 | comment | added | jeffronicus | Just for clarity, presidential elections are conducted at the state level and each state has its own procedures for qualifying parties, candidates, and voters. There appear to be two levels at which a candidate could be challenged or barred: The first would be qualifying as a primary candidate, which can have many bureaucratic requirements such as gathering signatures; but the second would be when the state's top election official procedurally approves placing the national nominee from each qualifying party on the state's ballot. | |
| Nov 6, 2023 at 21:19 | history | edited | Jen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| Nov 6, 2023 at 21:00 | history | edited | Jen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added a bit more context.
|
| Nov 6, 2023 at 6:23 | history | answered | Jen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |