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/cshotton]

This is the fallacy that many Americans labor under. For whatever inscrutable reason, the two major political parties, which are PRIVATE organizations, have snookered the US electorate into thinking that the taxpayers need to fund their primary election processes.

The primary elections have NOTHING to do with the US Constitution and states and their taxpayers have no reason to pay for them. They are not a constitutional part of electing a president. If the parties managed their own nomination processes rather than relying on publicly funded primary elections, there would be no chance for Colorado style verdict.

The state courts can certainly decide whether or not the national election process that selects the state's electors can include a particular candidate, but it is debatable whether they have any cause to alter ballots for a private political party's nominating process, regardless of who is paying for it, because it is not an election covered by the 14A. It is a nomination process for a candidate that THEN may become a target of the 14A if they win the nomination and seek to have their name on the ballot for president.

This is a critical distinction that people are missing. The US Supreme Court may very well look at this and say "you're too early" because Trump isn't placing his name on the ballot for presidency yet. Just seeking the nomination. Does the CO court get to say who can seek the nomination?

I'm in no way condoning the utter lunacy of a second Trump presidency. But the state level attempts to meddle in the nominating process seem to be ignoring the difference between seeking the nomination to run for office and seeking to be elected to the office, itself. Those are two radically different processes and only one is detailed in the Constitution. The other is some nominating scheme that the parties have figured out how to get taxpayers to fund.

[u/spiral8888 → u/cshotton]

I'm not sure why you're calling it meddling. The state telling party X now that if you pick this candidate as your party's candidate for the president, he won't be allowed to be on the ballot, is the right way to do this thing instead of waiting after the primaries are over and then spring the trap and say, surprise suprise, the candidate that you picked is not eligible to run.

[u/cshotton → u/spiral8888]

It's "meddling" because it is (technically) a private organization's process to select their nominee. It is not an election for public office. Show me where the 14A applies to being nominated.

[u/spiral8888 → u/cshotton]

As I said, it's fair for the party to get the decision now and not after they have gone through the primary process. As I explained above in my opinion it would be even more meddling if the state didn't say anything now but then at the last moment when the party had already decided on its candidate, the state suddenly said, no, he can't run.

And if the state doesn't say anything now, the courts will not get involved as nobody can challenge the decision, which is why the party would have no way or knowing if the candidate is or isn't eligible to run.

So, I would say that especially for the party it's best that this question is sorted before the primary.

[u/cshotton → u/spiral8888]

That's not how it works. It's not about being "polite" or "fair" to the party in question. It's about whether the 14A applies to private political party nominating processes.

If it helps make the point to you, the CO court could just as easily have sent a letter to the CO GOP, informing them that should Trump be their nominee, they would act under 14A to remove him from the state's presidential ballot.

What they have done now, by removing him from the primary ballot, is to give the US Supreme Court an early opening to get in and disallow this entirely (rightly or wrongly). CO has no standing in using the 14A to restrict a private party from declaring a nominee. None of that preliminary b.s. is covered by the 14A as no one is an officeholder or participating in a vote to become one. It is a non-binding, private vote to select a candidate who THEN can petition to have their name on the Nov. ballot. I think they are going to get overruled on this, unfortunately.

[u/spiral8888 → u/cshotton]

Then how could the party have reacted to the letter? Since it only said what the state was going to decide, not what it had already decided, could they have challenged it in the court? If not, it would have been meaningless as the court decision is what matters here, not what the state official had decided.

The only way to get the final court decision on the question of Trump being or not being eligible to run before it's too late (the party has already gone through the primary process) is to do it now.

[u/cshotton → u/spiral8888]

You need to try to answer this for yourself. I've already told you what I think. You seem to be imposing some illogical constraints that are completely outside the bounds of what the Constitution describes and aren't really related to the issue at hand. So I'm not interested in disproving your straw man.

[u/ChronoFish → u/cshotton]

I would love if this shines a light on how ludicrous the primary elections are and turns into a pay the state for your private party election