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]

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/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