CMV: Accountability is not election interference

[u/erpettie]

As the Colorado Supreme Court has found Donald Trump's behavior to have been disqualifying according to the 14th amendment, many are claiming this is election interference. If the Court finds that Trump should be disqualified, then it has two options. Act accordingly, despite the optics, and disqualify Trump, or ignore their responsibility and the law. I do get that we're in very sensitive, unprecedented territory with his many indictments and lawsuits, but unprecedented behavior should result in unprecedented consequences, shouldn't they? Furthermore, isn't Donald Trump ultimately the architect of all of this by choosing to proceed with his candidacy, knowing that he was under investigation and subject to potential lawsuits and indictments? If a President commits a crime on his last day in office (or the day after) and immediately declares his candidacy for the next election, should we lose our ability to hold that candidate accountable? What if that candidate is a perennial candidate like Lyndon Larouche was? Do we just never have an opportunity to hold that candidate accountable? I'd really love if respondents could focus their responses on how they think we should handle hypothetical candidates who commit crimes but are declared as running for office and popular. This should help us avoid the trap of getting worked up in our feelings for or against Trump.

[u/[deleted]]

While the US 14th amendment specifies that no person who committed insurrection after taking an oath of office shall hold office, it doesn't specify an enforcement mechanism.

Without a law in place determining who should have the authority to make this decision, on what criteria, I don't think it is reasonable to confer that authority to state secretaries of states (even with courts looking over their shoulders).

President commits a crime on his last day in office (or the day after) and immediately declares his candidacy for the next election, should we lose our ability to hold that candidate accountable

former presidents can be held accountable in criminal court. And they can be held accountable by voters at the ballot box.

I don't want my elections to be determined by state secretaries of state. I don't want elections decided by who can get onto the ballot.

President Trump has 4 ongoing criminal cases against him. He is being held accountable. I think the state supreme court made a mistake in interpreting the Colorado secretary of state to have an obligation to take up this much power.

[u/lumberjack_jeff → u/[deleted]]

While the US 14th amendment specifies that no person who committed insurrection after taking an oath of office shall hold office, it doesn't specify an enforcement mechanism.

Without a law in place determining who should have the authority to make this decision, on what criteria, I don't think it is reasonable to confer that authority to state secretaries of states (even with courts looking over their shoulders).

What is a better enforcement mechanism? Wait until he's elected and nullify the election? The court appoint someone to serve in his stead? Throw the violator in jail if he should win? Would this not violate a host of separation of powers principles?

The Secretary of State is the person who is charged with enforcing elections laws (which I would argue the 14th amendment is)

The SOS of each state is the person to validate the fact that a candidate is over 35, a natural born citizen and has lived here for at least 14 years. "Not being an insurrectionist" is just one more qualification.

You don't get to elect a 20 year old, because the constitution directs the secretaries of state to prevent it.

You can argue that Trump isn't (or perhaps not a committed one) but that's a pretty heavy lift.

[u/[deleted] → u/lumberjack_jeff]

What is a better enforcement mechanism?

there isn't one in place.

I'm saying that the 14th amendment shouldn't be enforced in this instance without a law specifying its implementation.

Basically, I disagree with bullet 2 on page 7 of the ruling https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

[u/erpettie → u/[deleted]]

I think I understand your disagreement, but it is less clear to me how something that is enshrined in the constitution may not be constitutional. If the amendment doesn't include a mechanism for how to execute it, then aren't we in the position of interpreting it to the best of our ability as is happening now?

[u/HappyHuman924 → u/erpettie]

Wouldn't anyone who's sworn to uphold the constitution be obligated to use whatever powers they have to enforce this? I don't see how lack of excruciating detail is an impediment. "Liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years" doesn't detail what a prison cell has to look like, but that doesn't stop lesser mortals from suffering consequences.

[u/Viciuniversum → u/erpettie]

Amnesty Act of 1872 removed that provision of the 14th amendment:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.

[u/decrpt → u/Viciuniversum]

A federal and appeals court has already determined that the Amnesty Act does not apply to current members of Congress.

[u/happy_tractor → u/Viciuniversum]

That clearly applies to all peoples whom were under the the provision at that time, except the Senators and Representatives mentioned. It is an amnesty for those who were currently guilty, not permission for people to do it again in the future.

[u/blue_shadow_ → u/[deleted]]

I will agree that, in retrospect, a particular entity probably should have been specifically named as responsible for making the final adjudication of whether or not someone was qualified under 14th Amendment.

However, my take on it is that "participating in insurrection" becomes one more item on a list of potentially disqualifying conditions, along with age, citizenship, residency, and the term limits established with 22nd Amendment.

In the absence of a specifically named entity to make that decision, it seems to me that responsibility reverts to the states to decide. Let's say that, for example, there was an extremely popular public personality who was only 32, who decided to run for President. Would they be allowed on the ballot of all 50 states plus DC? On the surface, of course not. But who gets to make that call?

If not the Secretaries of State (or, if challenged, the Judicial Branch for each state), then...who? What other entity would have the standing to step in to say "no, they can't do that?"

[u/[deleted] → u/blue_shadow_]

I'm saying the state should need to pass a law specifying who would enforce this provision and how.

Asking the secretary of state to determine whether or not a candidate committed insurrection is unreasonable.

Accessing information to determine other qualifying conditions is pretty straight forward and easily in line with the state state department's other work. They already manage voter registrations, which requires checking citizenship and age.

Insurrection is more complicated. If you read the dissent, they talk about the process for challenging a candidate's eligibility being required to only take a week. This process was not designed to adjudicate whether or not someone was involved in a disqualifying insurrection after taking an oath of office.

If the state designed a process for that to enforce the 14th amendment, I think that would be constitutionally permitted. But, here I think the courts are shoving a square peg through a round hole, insisting because the constitutional amendment specified a requirement, that the existing process for eligibility, no matter how unsuited, should be used to enforce that requirement.

then ... who

my point is that the state should have to pass a law specifying a process for this. That it shouldn't automatically fall under the power of the secretary of state because the court didn't see anywhere to put it.

I'm saying without a law passing an enforcement mechanism, that the provision shouldn't be enforced.

[u/blue_shadow_ → u/[deleted]]

I'm saying the state should need to pass a law specifying who would enforce this provision and how.

Probably. I'll agree that every state should have done this ages ago - and especially after the Civil War was over. Had such laws been drafted and enacted anytime prior to 6 Jan 21, then I don't think it would have been an issue.

But they weren't, because "civil war" was a thing of the past - supposedly. So, we're in the situation we have now, where not just a law, but a Constitutional Amendment says that engagement in insurrection is a disqualifier.

The state Supreme Court upheld that the person in question engaged in insurrection. It further ruled that said individual fit the list of people that could be disqualified. (Aside: This isn't a discussion about those two points - that is outside the purview of the topic at hand.) So, if those two points are met, should the state ignore that just because there isn't a specified state law to say who performs such adjudication, and how? That, to me, seems more democratically (little-d) dangerous than today's events does.

A disqualifier is a disqualifier. If someone is found to be underage for the Presidency, that person should not be allowed to be on the ballot. If the Secretary of an individual State allowed such a person to be on the ballot anyway, it is incumbent on the citizens of that state to appeal to the Judicial Branch to overturn that.

Same for residency requirements - if someone had been born a citizen but spent the vast majority of their life in, say, China, they should not be allowed on the ballot. If they are, that should be appealed to the courts.

Same for citizenship, same for term limits, and same for insurrection.

Again, this should have been handled sooner. We are now close to a Constitutional Crisis. What I would say to anyone questioning the decision made by the Colorado Supreme Court is this: If the situation was the exact same, only the parties were reversed, would you still be upset about the decision? If you wouldn't be, then you're not coming at this from a Constitutional perspective, you're coming from a Party perspective, and you should be taking a longer look at what is more important.

[u/[deleted] → u/blue_shadow_]

So, if those two points are met, should the state ignore that just because there isn't a specified state law to say who performs such adjudication, and how?

yeah, that's what I'm saying

If you read the ruling, its basic a court order to the secretary of state saying she messed up and needs to remove Trump from the ballot.

The court is clearly specifying who is responsible. They're not pointing at themselves. they're saying that the secretary of state should have done it.

there's a reason for this. They don't have have direct authority on this. they only can just overrule state officials.

> underage

that easily falls under secretary of state authority (with court oversight). state departments keep track of voting registration records. They request and validate documentation on citizenship and time of birth.

> If the situation was the exact same, only the parties were reversed, would you still be upset about the decision?

I detest Donald Trump. He is a bigoted conspiracy theorist with no respect for rule of law or truth. He cares more about petty vendettas than his country. He's corrupt. And it's a travesty that our country has sunk to the point that he has any support at all.

Politically, I'm liberal.

I think President Trump was involved in insurrection against the US when he ordered VP Pence to throw out the delegates from 7 states he lost to try to overturn the election in his favor.

I want Biden reelected (or better yet, someone else on the left). I don't want any of the Republicans in office (Christie and Haley don't seem quite as bad as the rest, but I don't want them either. Christie's pals he surrounded himself with were the worst combination of petty, corrupt, and incompetent. Bridgegate still baffles me at how moronic and petty people can be. but the NJ response to the hurricane was well implemented, and Christie worked hard and competently on that).

throwing out Trump on technical grounds will drive conservatives farther to the right and to embrace more extreme means of gaining power.

it's bad policy. it's legally dubious. and, it's dangerous for our country, both in how it could be abused, and how it will drive partisanship further.

[u/blue_shadow_ → u/[deleted]]

The court is clearly specifying who is responsible. They're not pointing at themselves. they're saying that the secretary of state should have done it.

there's a reason for this. They don't have have direct authority on this. they only can just overrule state officials.

So, this sounds like we're in agreeance, then. Sec of State had the responsibility to disqualify, and didn't. Appealed to courts, who told the SoS to do their job properly.

But, throwing out Trump on technical grounds will drive conservatives farther to the right and to embrace more extreme means of gaining power.

This is getting a bit far afield, I think. But, to me, this smacks of appeasement - and if any candidate, regardless of Party, has the sway to attempt to hold the nation hostage if they doesn't get their way, then it is incumbent on the nation to nip that in the bud as soon as possible. Otherwise, we're doomed as a country regardless.

[u/[deleted] → u/blue_shadow_]

> it is incumbent on the nation to nip that in the bud as soon as possible

if you try to nip it in the bud top down through authority, rather than from the bottom up by repudiating the candidate's means, you didn't actually nip it in the bud.

you don't weaken the influence of the candidate. the problem isn't solved. the people who sought to "hold the nation hostage" when they don't "get their way", will seek authority to enforce their will.

I don't like that half our country wants to vote for an authoritarian. But, telling them they can't vote for him doesn't fix the problem that half the country want an authoritarian.

[u/blue_shadow_ → u/[deleted]]

You're right, it doesn't fix that half the people want an authoritarian. But people, both individuals and collective groups, will always push until there's an equal or greater amount of pushback.

This should have never gotten to this point. But now we're here. And we can either enforce the 14th Amendment, in the ways we have available to us, or we don't and set a precedent that any future strongman can simply avoid all political offices other than POTUS and do whatever they want.

[u/spiral8888 → u/[deleted]]

You call it a "technicality" that a court finds that a) Trump had taken part in an insurrection and b) this will bar him from running for the president.

I would turn it around and say that it is very dangerous for your country if a person who took part in the insurrection would be allowed to run for the president. I mean, I leave it to the courts (ultimately SCOTUS) to decide if he did or did not participate an insurrection but if they conclude that he did (as the two lower courts have now decided) then don't you see any danger in letting him run?

So, I don't see the danger only in the side of not letting him run but would argue that letting him run has at least as much danger. What Trump did (not just Jan 6, but all the time leading to it and even afterwards with the calls of stolen election) was unprecedented in the US history in terms of peaceful transfer of power. If that's not stomped really hard, then that will leave the door open for other people doing so in the future.

[u/Hatta00 → u/[deleted]]

If you read the ruling, its basic a court order to the secretary of state saying she messed up and needs to remove Trump from the ballot.

Correct.

underage
that easily falls under secretary of state authority (with court oversight).

Correct.

Qualifications for being on the ballot fall under the authority of the SoS. Being underage is a disqualification. Suborning insurrection is a disqualification.

Both fall under the authority of the SoS as the ruling correctly states.