Trump Might Not Be on Ballot of 20 States (thought, liberals, extremist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let those laws pass, and the challenges will occur.
And they will go all the way to SCOTUS, even though some posters here think that it will be confined at the state level. And let us see what SCOTUS has to say on these new state rules.
You are right on the basic point. In kind of a case, however, most of the action is in the request for injunctive relief, and almost none of the action is in the answering process with regard to the complaint. Determination of the underlying action will be mooted by the election. Thus, what the courts do with regards to the interim relief is crucial and likely conclusive. The appeals my very well be decided very fast because election law litigation is always highly expedited.
You are correct that the state cannot vary who is allowed to vote; I am less clear about their ability to determine who is on the ballot. I have not researched this issue yet. The campaign finance laws, ironically, may be what guarantees the holders of nominations of major parties a place on the ballot, but I'm not sure.
That would be the long and short of it.
Injunctive relief is at the discretion of the court, but where the plaintiff can show harm, the injunction is always granted, and even more so if the plaintiff can demonstrate irreparable harm.
Before people get bent out of shape, courts view things from the "most rational person" perspective, not the "most irrational person." Any sane rational person would consider the effect of losing an election to be irreparable harm.
For any trial court that didn't grant injunctive relief, Trump would immediately appeal and the circuit courts would grant the injunction (and then say not nice things about the errors of the trial court).
In my view, and that's all it is, a State could compel someone to release a State tax return filed in that State, assuming a candidate had actually filed a tax return in that State, but I don't see how a State can compel one to release their federal tax returns or tax returns from other States.
I don't even see how tax returns are even remotely relevant to any candidate's qualifications regardless of party affiliation.
Status:
"A solution in search of a problem"
(set 8 days ago)
Location: New York Area
34,382 posts, read 16,502,517 times
Reputation: 29546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That would be the long and short of it.
Injunctive relief is at the discretion of the court, but where the plaintiff can show harm, the injunction is always granted, and even more so if the plaintiff can demonstrate irreparable harm..
All the action is at the injunction state. Damages are hard to quantify and thus the "lawsuit" stage is just a way to get into court. The entitlement to a portion of the $3 "voluntary" contribution with your filed tax return may be the hook that guarantees the major parties a place of the ballot. But I have not researched it and am not sure.The FEC has a definition of "major party":
Quote:
A political party whose candidate in the preceding presidential election received, as the candidate of such party, 25 percent or more of the popular vote. 11 CFR 9002.6 and 9008.2(c).
Again I do not know if this ensures ballot placement. A court facing a nonsensical exclusion of a sitting president from the ballot may well use these regulations as the "hook" to mandate this result.
Twenty states are considering laws which will require presidential candidates to release their tax returns if they wish to appear on that state's ballot. Trump has steadfastly refused to release his taxes.
Before the Trumpsters cry "unconstitutional," be aware that the Constitution grants the states the power to administer and conduct all elections in the manner of their own choosing.
When libs start meddling with elections that prevents a sitting POTUS from being on the ballot, it is essentially a declaration of civil war.
Dems are finding it harder to win elections, so they seek fascist means of insuring lib elected officials:
removing candidates from ballots, restructuring the Senate, or eliminating the electoral college.
It is no wonder that many view liberalism as a greater threat to our nation than Islamic terrorism.
When libs start meddling with elections that prevents a sitting POTUS from being on the ballot, it is essentially a declaration of civil war.
Dems are finding it harder to win elections, so they seek fascist means of insuring lib elected officials:
removing candidates from ballots, restructuring the Senate, or eliminating the electoral college.
It is no wonder that many view liberalism as a greater threat to our nation than Islamic terrorism.
It is No more a threat than Republican gerrymandering is, and no less a declaration of civil war to extremists than gerrymandering.
The fact is elections are supposed to be hard. An easy election is a danger to our nation. Too much agreement will kill a democracy faster than too much dissent. Democracy has to be hard fought to be kept.
Never forget that Hitler didn't make Germany what it became. Germany made Hitler who he became. That's what can happen when there's too much agreement in a democracy.
It is No more a threat than Republican gerrymandering is, and no less a declaration of civil war to extremists than gerrymandering.
The fact is elections are supposed to be hard. An easy election is a danger to our nation. Too much agreement will kill a democracy faster than too much dissent. Democracy has to be hard fought to be kept.
Never forget that Hitler didn't make Germany what it became. Germany made Hitler who he became. That's what can happen when there's too much agreement in a democracy.
Gerrymandering has been done by both parties for as long as the nation has existed. That does not make it right, but it is dirty politics on a local level.
What you are advocating is fundamentally changing the nature of the republic and alienate most of the nation in favor of ten urban areas.
"Restructuring the Senate" and elimination of the electoral college would be a declaration of war. Why? There would be no reason whatsoever for about 36 states to be a part of the Union any longer. Again, these are United STATES of America. The States are afforded all jurisdiction over areas not given to the Feds in the Constitution.
Libs are totalitarians at heart, so they will perpetually try to enslave others who do not share their views.
I had to submit my tax records to get my security clearance. If I didn't, I wouldn't have received it. Maybe the FBI does check with the IRS to see if they were valid, but for sure, they were mandatory when I applied for a clearance.
I didn't need to submit the full form. Just a copy of the last page with the totals and my SS number ID and signature.
Our state law makes tax submission mandatory for any person who runs for any office within the state. Local, county, and state offices.
No, you don’t. My husband has never been required to do so, I doubt he is some kind of special exception. Yes, there are security clearances denied for not paying taxes, but that is done through a query sent to the IRS, not through you providing your tax records.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
So you're saying folks would be willing to kill their countrymen over an alleged billionaire's tax returns? That's very troubling considering the entire purpose of financial disclosure is to shed transparency about a candidate's possible conflicts of interest.
Very odd hill to die on... Is that really making America great????
It would not be about him in particular, but about states denying their population the ability to vote on the candidate of one of the major parties. This is a strictly partisan move and everyone understands that. I don’t like Trump and would love to see some viable candidate that I could vote for, but I would be threatening my state lawmakers with a pitchfork if they did this. I would never vote for Creepy Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders, but I would be just as livid if my state lawmakers pulled some stunt to keep the Democratic candidate off the ballot.
Talk about voter suppression.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Moderator - Diabetes and Kentucky (including Lexington & Louisville)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.