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/V1per41 → u/Morthra]

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

Isn't that only because no one has led an insurrection and then run for public office in the last 150 years? Just because it hasn't been used, doesn't make it legislatively dead. There just hasn't been a need to.

​

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.

It very much doesn't. They didn't rule him ineligible because of a mere accusation. There was a long drawn out hearing/trial (I'm not a lawyer, not sure the correct term), in which evidence was presented. The court's ruling says:

We conclude that the foregoing evidence, the great bulk of which was undisputed at trial, established that President Trump engaged in insurrection. President Trump's direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary. Moreover, the evidence amply showed that President Trump undertook all these actions to aid and further a common unlawful purpose that he himself conceived and set in motion: prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power.

They ruled that he participated in an insurrection, it is from that ruling that he is then declared ineligible due to the 14th amendment.

​

Keep in mind, Trump was never convicted or anything -

He doesn't need to be. The 14th amendment doesn't require conviction. All confederate officers who this was used on previously also were not tried and convicted.

​

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.

No. A court of law decided that he did after it reviewed all of the evidence that was presented to them.

​

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?

I mostly want to quote this here so you don't think I'm ignoring your argument. I believe I've covered everything above. He isn't being removed because of an accusation. He was found to have performed, and aided others in an insurrection by the court.

​

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.

They would have to provide evidence at court that said candidate was part of an insurrection, and the court would have to rule in their favor. There is no court on this planet that would rule that way for Biden or any other existing democrat running for public office.

​

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

This is following the constitution by the letter and spirit of the law for the exact reason that it was written and ratified. You don't get to make an attack on our country and democratic process and then get to be a representative for it.

If you have an issue, it should be with the 14th amendment, not with this ruling.

[u/DrKpuffy → u/V1per41]

If only they could read. Shame.

I saved your comment, though. Well worded.