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.
States cannot impose requirements for qualifications in addition to those specified in the Constitution.
Not to worry, because none of this matters.
This is what happens:
1) On Thursday, October 15, 2020, Trump files suit in each of the 20 federal courts having jurisdiction over those 20 States seeking an order declaring the law unconstitutional and an order for injunctive relief.
2) On Friday, October 15, 2020, courts are obligated by case law to grant injunctive relief.
3) Later that day, States scramble at great cost and expense to tax-payers to print new ballots with Trump's name on it.
************
7) The order for injunctive relief will remain in place in any event through the appeals process, and an appeal wouldn't happen until after the Election.
So, it's all for naught.
The failure of the States would be so massive it wouldn't even be a Pyrrhic victory.
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.
At least one positive thing could result if these states get away with keeping President Trump off the ballot. It will be easier to shut down discussions of popular vote being higher for the Loser of the Electoral Vote. Especially since it will be more likely to happen in this case.
dangerous precedent to make up rules to keep a duly nominated presidential candidate off a state ballot. what would stop red states from making rules eliminating dem candidates from state ballots?
very, very bad that some support something so anti-democratic.
dangerous precedent to make up rules to keep a duly nominated presidential candidate off a state ballot. what would stop red states from making rules eliminating dem candidates from state ballots?
very, very bad that some support something so anti-democratic.
What might those rules include?
Proof of citizenship? Reasonable.
Verification of education? Also reasonable.
As long as the requirements are applied equally, there is no issue.
States already have their own standards for candidates appearing on ballots, starting with differing numbers of signatures and such.
How would this be ay different?
And, as someone asked earlier - what ever has happened to all of that support for states’ rights?
dangerous precedent to make up rules to keep a duly nominated presidential candidate off a state ballot. what would stop red states from making rules eliminating dem candidates from state ballots?
very, very bad that some support something so anti-democratic.
I completely agree with this. If it's allowed, it's undermining the entire democratic system. I can't believe anyone would get behind this. Open a can of worms like this and some day it might be their candidate that's banned from running. smh
This is totally ridiculous! There is no legal requirement for a candidate to release their tax returns and if Trump has broken the law, as powerful as the deep state is he would already be charged with a crime regarding his taxes.
So what if he paid little taxes? That's called being smart- paying as little taxes as possible LEGALLY. That's the point of finding a good accountant!
I think Trump should use the subpoena to show to the American people that it is no longer safe to file income taxes and why they need to be eliminated.
Under that philosophy, Ohio has every right to Gerrymander, along with Maryland and NC
According to quite a few Trump supporters, states have exactly that right (check out some of those threads.)
So why is one okay and the other not?
The answer is pretty clear, is it not?
Anything that guarantees a GOP win = good.
Anything that might inconvenience Trump is not.
We get it.
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.
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.
