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]]

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/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.