Colorado kicks Donald Trump off ballot

[underwaterrhymes]

www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/colorado-supreme-court-kicks-trump-states-2024-ballot-violating-us-con-rcna130484

[AdaraMarie]

I just saw the local news alert about this - made my day!

[AAM2012]

Grabs my popcorn…waiting for his meltdown on his platform that nobody uses…

[jlt19]

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

[ellipses84]

I’m assuming this will go to our corrupt Supreme Court and be appealed. I don’t know how you can be the Commander in Chief of the military who took an oath and not be considered an “officer” of the United States, though.

I was thinking about this possibility the other day and wondered if there was any way the electoral college could mess things up. Like if a state took DT off the ballot, but the state still voted majority Red, and DT won other states, could the electors vote for him instead of the alternate R candidate? Obviously that’s not the will of the people but we learned rogue electors can happen and some states don’t have any consequences for them.

[aurora]

I have to admit I wasn't expecting this. Go, Colorado!

[mcsangel2]

Dec 19, 2023 18:51:33 GMT -5 ellipses84 said:

I’m assuming this will go to our corrupt Supreme Court and be appealed. I don’t know how you can be the Commander in Chief of the military who took an oath and not be considered an “officer” of the United States, though.

I was thinking about this possibility the other day and wondered if there was any way the electoral college could mess things up. Like if a state took DT off the ballot, but the state still voted majority Red, and DT won other states, could the electors vote for him instead of the alternate R candidate? Obviously that’s not the will of the people but we learned rogue electors can happen and some states don’t have any consequences for them.

I'm not sure it *can* go to the SC? Elections are run by each state, individually. IANAL but it seems to me a Federal court wouldn't have jurisdiction.

[penguingrrl]

I know he’s appealing to SCOTUS, but do they even have jurisdiction? They gutted the Voting Rights Act under the auspices of state’s rights…

[aurora]

Dec 19, 2023 19:22:32 GMT -5 mcsangel2 said:

Dec 19, 2023 18:51:33 GMT -5 ellipses84 said:

I’m assuming this will go to our corrupt Supreme Court and be appealed. I don’t know how you can be the Commander in Chief of the military who took an oath and not be considered an “officer” of the United States, though.

I was thinking about this possibility the other day and wondered if there was any way the electoral college could mess things up. Like if a state took DT off the ballot, but the state still voted majority Red, and DT won other states, could the electors vote for him instead of the alternate R candidate? Obviously that’s not the will of the people but we learned rogue electors can happen and some states don’t have any consequences for them.

I'm not sure it *can* go to the SC? Elections are run by each state, individually. IANAL but it seems to me a Federal court wouldn't have jurisdiction.

This article says it will be appealed to SCOTUS:

www.cpr.org/2023/12/19/colorado-supreme-court-disqualifies-trump-from-ballot/

[erbear]

Dec 19, 2023 19:24:29 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

I know he’s appealing to SCOTUS, but do they even have jurisdiction? They gutted the Voting Rights Act under the auspices of state’s rights…

They do not, and they will rule anyway, contradicting their own damn decision. Wheee!

[redheadbaker]

[waverly]

Dec 19, 2023 18:51:33 GMT -5 ellipses84 said:

I’m assuming this will go to our corrupt Supreme Court and be appealed. I don’t know how you can be the Commander in Chief of the military who took an oath and not be considered an “officer” of the United States, though.

I was thinking about this possibility the other day and wondered if there was any way the electoral college could mess things up. Like if a state took DT off the ballot, but the state still voted majority Red, and DT won other states, could the electors vote for him instead of the alternate R candidate? Obviously that’s not the will of the people but we learned rogue electors can happen and some states don’t have any consequences for them.

States may want to enact better laws around electors. ask.loc.gov/law/faq/331082 But it appears even states without laws in place can remove faithless electors.

[pixy0stix]

Dec 19, 2023 19:09:18 GMT -5 aurora said:

I have to admit I wasn't expecting this. Go, Colorado!

I kind of was just based on the judge's previous comments. I forgot that the ruling was coming, though.

ETA - this isn't the case I was thinking about at all. Huh.

[neverfstop]

meh- several states have considered this & from a political and foundation of democracy perspective, at this point, I think it's just better if (A) he doesn't get the nom or (b) gets roundly defeated in every single state.

I think if this ends up in a protracted legal battle, Trump wins (at least the narrative). If he runs for POTUS and isn't on several state ballots (mostly likely it would be in all blue states anyway), he still gets to claim things are rigged and it's the only reason he didn't win.

Very obviously & clearly, he shouldn't be allowed on the ballots by a clear reading of the standard, but any GOP leaders are still turning a blind eye to what he did

[aurora]

Dec 19, 2023 20:10:39 GMT -5 neverfstop said:

meh- several states have considered this & from a political and foundation of democracy perspective, at this point, I think it's just better if (A) he doesn't get the nom or (b) gets roundly defeated in every single state.

I think if this ends up in a protracted legal battle, Trump wins (at least the narrative). If he runs for POTUS and isn't on several state ballots (mostly likely it would be in all blue states anyway), he still gets to claim things are rigged and it's the only reason he didn't win.

Very obviously & clearly, he shouldn't be allowed on the ballots by a clear reading of the standard, but any GOP leaders are still turning a blind eye to what he did

In some aspects, I agree. It would be way better if he were just voted down.

But.

Assuming he's on the primary ballot in enough states, he's going to get the R nom. I just can't see how anyone can catch up to him.

So.

I also think democracy benefits from states upholding the value that insurrection is anti-democratic. And maybe other states will follow this lead.

[basilosaurus]

Because of course. thehill.com/homenews/senate/4368856-sen-tillis-introduce-legislation-barring-federal-funds-from-states-misusing-14th-amendment/

The true outage is obviously trying to follow the constitution, not blatantly and dangerously attempting to destroy democracy.

[chchchia]

So the never trump in me is ecstatic about this, I do worry about precedent though. Can red states do this as well and ban democrats from the ballot?
What happens if he is written in despite not being on the ballot, would those write ins count or would they be moot bc he wasn't supposed to be on the ballot? I do not know the particulars about this, I plan on educating myself and reading about this so I can judge based on facts rather than opinion.
If anyone knows the answers to my questions, please help!
I'm quite sure the SC will rule to put him on the ballot bc of the balance on the court is exactly legal. It will be interesting to see how this falls out.

[neverfstop]

Trump has just made such a mess and mockery of our whole democracy- showing how really fragile it is and how close he came to breaking it.

So from Axios-
1- SCOTUS is already hearing a case on "obstruction of an official proceeding" in one of Trump's other criminal cases
2- Justice Thomas SHOULD recuse himself based on his wife's participation in Jan 6 events
3- What happens when we get a 4-4 ruling??
4- 12 other states trying to get Trump off ballot www.axios.com/2023/11/16/trump-efforts-disqualify-2024-ballot-14th-amendment

[wanderingback]

Dec 19, 2023 20:10:39 GMT -5 neverfstop said:

meh- several states have considered this & from a political and foundation of democracy perspective, at this point, I think it's just better if (A) he doesn't get the nom or (b) gets roundly defeated in every single state.

I think if this ends up in a protracted legal battle, Trump wins (at least the narrative). If he runs for POTUS and isn't on several state ballots (mostly likely it would be in all blue states anyway), he still gets to claim things are rigged and it's the only reason he didn't win.

Very obviously & clearly, he shouldn't be allowed on the ballots by a clear reading of the standard, but any GOP leaders are still turning a blind eye to what he did

I guess I don’t really care if he throws a tantrum and says things are rigged. As long as another January 6th doesn’t happen and as long as he’s not elected. But overall I’m all for using laws in our favor just like republicans have done.

[basilosaurus]

Dec 20, 2023 6:27:11 GMT -5 neverfstop said:

Trump has just made such a mess and mockery of our whole democracy- showing how really fragile it is and how close he came to breaking it.

So from Axios-
1- SCOTUS is already hearing a case on "obstruction of an official proceeding" in one of Trump's other criminal cases
2- Justice Thomas SHOULD recuse himself based on his wife's participation in Jan 6 events
3- What happens when we get a 4-4 ruling??
4- 12 other states trying to get Trump off ballot www.axios.com/2023/11/16/trump-efforts-disqualify-2024-ballot-14th-amendment

There is zero chance Thomas would recuse himself

[TR]

Dec 20, 2023 7:54:55 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Dec 19, 2023 20:10:39 GMT -5 neverfstop said:

meh- several states have considered this & from a political and foundation of democracy perspective, at this point, I think it's just better if (A) he doesn't get the nom or (b) gets roundly defeated in every single state.

I think if this ends up in a protracted legal battle, Trump wins (at least the narrative). If he runs for POTUS and isn't on several state ballots (mostly likely it would be in all blue states anyway), he still gets to claim things are rigged and it's the only reason he didn't win.

Very obviously & clearly, he shouldn't be allowed on the ballots by a clear reading of the standard, but any GOP leaders are still turning a blind eye to what he did

I guess I don’t really care if he throws a tantrum and says things are rigged. As long as another January 6th doesn’t happen and as long as he’s not elected. But overall I’m all for using laws in our favor just like republicans have done.

This. Keep talking, buddy, whatever.

[Susie]

Wow. Did not have this on my 2023 bingo card! Merry 14th amendmentmas to all!

I will think about all of the very important enumerated points that neverfstop mentioned tomorrow.

[fernweh]

I skimmed the article so it’s possible that I may have missed it - but would this ruling disqualify any write-in votes?

I know his name won’t be on the ballot but he has enough name recognition and enough of a following to get a high number of write-ins. Would they disqualify those votes or allow them?

[pixy0stix]

I don't know if I give a shit anymore about the Democrats old standby of justifying doing nothing because it might set a precedent. If we can't hold the line to uphold the law and the constitution, then what exactly are we doing?

One of the courts that decided not to rule on this matter said (paraphrased), "It's not the job of the courts to decide political matters." It struck me as dumb since they rule on matters of the constitution all the time. No one wants to touch this to see where it would go, and CO has decided to test the waters. I'm all in.

[pixy0stix]

Key clarification for everyone - this is only for the PRIMARY ballot so far. Colorado has a hybrid primary system where you can only vote for the party you are affiliated with. If you are unaffiliated you choose which party you want a ballot for.

ETA for even further clarification: The ruling is stayed until SCOTUS gives directive. So there's a good chance Trump will be on the primary ballot anyway. However, should SCOTUS give the ok he would then be removed from the CO ballot. For write-ins, I would imagine SCOTUS would have to cover that but if they say he's an insurrectionist, write-ins would need to be discarded as Trump wouldn't be an eligible candidate.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Dec 19, 2023 19:24:29 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

I know he’s appealing to SCOTUS, but do they even have jurisdiction? They gutted the Voting Rights Act under the auspices of state’s rights…

There are certain, narrow circumstances SCOTUS can hear state law matters. It's rare, but it happens.

There was a pretty big case a few years back that dealt with a North Dakota (I think?) DWI law, for example.

[bkseller13]

It may not stand, but we have a precedent for other states to follow. Additionally, I'm tired of this political hot potato being tossed between the states and congress/supreme court. ("We can't decide it, you decide it" "Oh, we're not deciding it YOU decide it".)

[pixy0stix]

I'm home sick today, so I can watch all the pundits talk about this issue. In 5 min, MSNBC mentioned all the points in this thread. LOL!

[pixy0stix]

The CO Rs have stated they'll just remove themselves from the primary system and do a caucus. Which doesn't make sense to me because if SCOTUS rules, or abstains from hearing the case, then it doesn't matter what they do for the primary.

[mpc]

The news podcast I listen to (The Newsworthy) said this morning that write in votes for Trump would also not count.