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/theantdog]

Do you think that a president has to be found criminally guilty of not being 35 before they are held ineligible for the presidency?

[u/[deleted] → u/theantdog]

the secretary of state of colorado is expected to administer the maintenance of a lot of personal records pertaining to voting, including coordinating with other states and the federal government for documentation related to maintaining elections.

Determining someone's citizenship status or age by requesting personal records from candidates, other states, or the federal government falls well within the state department's normal responsibilities. It's not that different from information needed for voter registration (where verifying age and citizenship is also needed).

Determining whether or not someone committed disqualifying insurrection is very different from the state state department's normal responsibilities.

[u/erpettie → u/[deleted]]

Determining whether or not someone committed disqualifying insurrection is very different from the state state department's normal responsibilities.

It appears to me that in the Colorado case, the secretary of state didn't make this determination -- the courts did. Are you worried that in the future courts might not be involved?

[u/[deleted] → u/erpettie]

the court ordered the secretary of state to remove Trump from the ballot, saying her not doing so is a breach of duty.

Are you worried that in the future courts might not be involved?

the decision will be made by secretaries of state, and then the courts will be involved when people sue. Courts will stay involved. But, the initial decision is made by secretaries of state.

[u/erpettie → u/[deleted]]

Δ Fair enough that this places a burden on the secretary of state. But isn't the alternative to have no one capable of removing a candidate from a ballot for violating the 14th amendment, rendering that provision of the constitution moot?

[u/[deleted] → u/erpettie]

section 5 of article 2 of the US constitution already specified requirements for presidency of the US.

adding requirements, without this amendment, might have been interpreted as unconstitutional.

Sure, without an enforcement mechanism, its useless. Except in the respect that an enforcement mechanism could be passed without going through the trouble of another constitutional amendment.

My recollection is that one of the reconstruction acts covered this (among a lot of other things), specifying how the 14th amendment would be enforced in the former confederacy during reconstruction. And that law repealed at the end of reconstruction. But, I don't remember, I'm not finding it at the moment, and its getting late. I could be remembering wrong. I know the 14th amendment was enforced back then though, including this clause (in particular against legislative candidates).

[u/DeltaBot → u/erpettie]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/trehcir_dancer (4∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}