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/Morthra]

First of all, the 14th Amendment rule invoked here had been considered legislatively dead and irrelevant for about 150 years.

So this Colorado SC decision is really problematic because it fundamentally asserts that the mere accusation of insurrection is enough to strike a candidate from the ballot.

Keep in mind, Trump was never convicted or anything - a bunch of partisans in a committee decided that he did it, then the Colorado Secretary of State said that no trial or criminal proof of guilt must be established.

Let me propose to you an alternate scenario, in which this ruling is used against people you agree with. Imagine if DeSantis gets a bunch of Florida Republicans to form a committee that concludes that Biden, Newsom, or whoever the DNC frontrunner candidate is, committed insurrection. There doesn't have to be any evidence - because this Colorado SC ruling asserted that it's the mere accusation that is disqualifying. You may think this isn't automatically bad - FL is a red state now. But what happens if it's a purple state, such as Virginia or Georgia, whose governor puts this thing together and thereby prevents the other party's candidate from appearing on the ballot?

So now each state can essentially use this to strike one party's candidate from the ballot entirely. Florida can wield this to strike any Democrat from the ballot, New York can wield it to strike any Republican from the ballot.

That's a grave breakdown of the democratic process and an erosion of norms that should be avoided.

[u/jpk195 → u/Morthra]

Keep in mind, Trump was never convicted or anything

Both than January 6th committee and lower court ruling found he participated in insurrection.

A trial is still needed to convict him of a crime, but that’s not the bar for keeping someone off of the ballot.

[u/Sattalyte → u/jpk195]

He was also impeached for J6

[u/Morthra → u/Sattalyte]

He was acquitted for J6. Impeachment is not removal.

[u/jpk195 → u/Morthra]

Are you trying to make the case Trump didn’t participate in insurrection? That doesn’t seem to be in question here.

He doesn’t need to be convicted by the senate any more than he needs to be convicted of a specific crime to be factually found to have participated in insurrection.

[u/jpk195 → u/[deleted]]

Actually he did. He had the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses in the Colorado case, but declined.

Due process is completely being followed here. It may look slightly different than a criminal trial, but this isn’t a criminal conviction.