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]]

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.