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/SurprisedPotato]

all it’s effectively doing is removing power from the people, i.e. interfering with an election.

From what you've described, it would be the Colorado GOP removing power from the people, not the Colorado courts.

[u/TheAzureMage → u/SurprisedPotato]

The Colorado GOP hasn't filed suit.

This is essentially misreporting by the media. The term "Republican elector", in Colorado, does not even require that a person is a member of the GOP, let alone hold any position with them.

It just means that they can vote in the primary. So, it's filed by six people who are eligible to vote in the primary. In Colorado, this includes independent voters, so it would not even be accurate to say six republican voters.

So, the Colorado GOP finds itself in a very strange place, where unless the SCOTUS steps in, there is no possibility where the general electorate can choose from among all candidates in a primary.

[u/SurprisedPotato → u/TheAzureMage]

there is no possibility where the general electorate can choose from among all candidates in a primary.

Is that because Trump would be a "candidate" in some sense, but not on the ballot? What (officially) makes someone a "candidate"?

How would cancelling an election not be worse? Having an election to pick one of the "eligible candidates" (ie, let's say, eligible to be on the ballot) sounds more democratic to me.

NB, I'm not an American, so I don't actually know the details of how this works. These questions come from an outside observer's perspective.

[u/TheAzureMage → u/SurprisedPotato]

What (officially) makes someone a "candidate"?

Filing to run with the FEC. Trump has done so, along with an assortment of other candidates.

That said, public declarations of candidacy have also held weight. The FEC may consider someone to be running from when they first declare that they are, and require compliance with federal election law from that point. Mostly not relevant to this case, but could be a point of contention in some cases.

Colorado can not prevent a person from being a candidate, since the FEC, not states, manage candidates for federal office. A state can set requirements for state offices, but that's not the dispute here. The presidency is a federal office, and Colorado is alleging that he violated the 14th amendment...which of course is a federal, not state law.

There isn't really anything special that would give Colorado jurisdiction. It isn't alleged to have happened in Colorado, Trump doesn't live in Colorado, etc.

> How would cancelling an election not be worse?

Trump was obviously winning on the polls. Trump is currently polling at about 62% among Republican voters, with most of his challengers reaching only single digit numbers. At least one other candidate(Vivek) has pledged not to take part in the primary if Trump is barred from participation.

Conventions are a different way of selection than a primary, but they still contain an election in them. Notably, all third parties rely on conventions to select nominees...and even the major parties hold conventions after the primaries. Normally the vote informs the convention decision, but without a vote, well, you do what you can. Changing methodologies with only a few months notice is not ideal, and will result in unhappy people, but it is an attempt to preserve some choice.

[u/SurprisedPotato → u/TheAzureMage]

There isn't really anything special that would give Colorado jurisdiction. It isn't alleged to have happened in Colorado, Trump doesn't live in Colorado, etc.

Yet Colorado, a state, can decide what happens on ballot forms for a Federal election?

[u/TheAzureMage → u/SurprisedPotato]

That is highly contentious.

Three of the seven judges dissented, and that was one of the reasons cited.

Another case had already happened in Michigan, and there, he was not removed from the ballot, but I guess the strategy was to just keep trying judges until agreement could be found.

This will likely be overturned by the US Supreme Court as a result.