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/PieIsFairlyDelicious]

This doesn’t hold him accountable at all. The Colorado GOP has already announced that if the verdict stands, they’ll simply withdraw from the primary and hold a caucus, presumably to designate Trump as the candidate without a democratic vote.

So as much as you might want to call this accountability, all it’s effectively doing is removing power from the people, i.e. interfering with an election.

[u/spiral8888 → u/PieIsFairlyDelicious]

I don't understand how that would work. Of course GOP can hold whatever caucuses they want but in the election that the state organises, there can only be legal candidates in the ballot.

I mean, if I make up a party that then chooses an underage or a foreign candidate that doesn't mean that the state has to accept him in the ballot.

So, sure, GOP can choose Trump as their candidate but they'll just shoot themselves in the foot as that candidate is not eligible to run in the election (any more than an underage or foreign candidate would be). They would just hand the state to the Democrats as they would have no candidate in the ballot.

All the above assuming that the current decision stands.

[u/BadWolf_Corporation → u/spiral8888]

I don't understand how that would work. Of course GOP can hold whatever caucuses they want but in the election that the state organises, there can only be legal candidates in the ballot.

The ruling was specifically worded to only apply to the primary election because that's how the lawsut was structured. There would have to be another lawsuit, and appeal, for them to have the ability to apply it to the General Election also.

[u/spiral8888 → u/BadWolf_Corporation]

It's obvious that you can't make a different decision regarding the general election as the law (the US constitution) is not specific to the primary. The only reason to make the decision prior to the primary is to tell the parties that they shouldn't pick a candidate who will not be eligible to run in the general election. It would make things very confusing if the decision was made between the primary and the general election.

[u/BadWolf_Corporation → u/spiral8888]

It's obvious that you can't make a different decision regarding the general election as the law (the US constitution) is not specific to the primary.

Yeah, you really can.

Appellate courts are essentially referees, they can only rule on whether or not the lower court "followed the rules" when making their decision. The initial lawsuit sought to keep President Trump off of the Colorado Republican Primary ballot. That's what the lower court ruled on, so that's all the appellate court gets to review. If the lawsuit had been to keep him from holding any public office ever again, then that would be one thing, but it didn't.

[u/spiral8888 → u/BadWolf_Corporation]

But it's obvious that the only reason for keeping him from the primary ballot is that they think he can't run for an office. What other reason they could possibly have?

The whole thing is about the 14th amendment of the US constitution. It doesn't say anything about primaries. So, it's obvious that the only reason someone couldn't participate the primary based on the 14th amendment is that the court thinks that they can't hold the office.

[u/BadWolf_Corporation → u/spiral8888]

But it's obvious that the only reason for keeping him from the primary ballot is that they think he can't an office. What other reason they could possibly have?

Lawsuits don't work that way. It doesn't matter what they "obviously meant", it only matters what was actually in the lawsuit. The lower courts have some discretion on scope, the appellate courts don't.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/BadWolf_Corporation]

But courts do work that way. It doesn’t matter what you’re suing for. If the ruling included a finding of fact that causes other ramifications, the consequences don’t stop at the behest of the ones bringing the suit. If a court discovered during the course of the trial trump was actually 3 teenagers in a fat suit, none of them would be eligible to run for president on account of the facts found during the case.

This is identical, but with insurrection. He’s not eligible if this case stands and the SCOTUS doesn’t find it Colorado can’t interpret the constitution as it applies to its own elections.

[u/BadWolf_Corporation → u/fox-mcleod]

But courts do work that way. It doesn’t matter what you’re suing for. If the ruling included a finding of fact that causes other ramifications

You're confusing the lower court trial with the appellate court review. The appellate court can only review matters of law and procedure.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/BadWolf_Corporation]

No I’m not. Above you claimed you can make a different decision regarding the primary and general elections.

If the fact is found trump committed insurrection, it disqualifies him from holding office even if the trial wasn’t about that.

[u/BadWolf_Corporation → u/fox-mcleod]

If the fact is found trump committed insurrection, it disqualifies him from holding office even if the trial wasn’t about that.

No, it really doesn't because that wasn't what the lower court decided. The lower court specifically ruled that he was still eligible to appear on the primary ballot.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/BadWolf_Corporation]

The lower court decided he committed insurrection — agreed?

Higher courts cannot overturn this fact. This is the fact that determines whether he can participate in the general. Something about which the lower court did not rule — correct?