• Dem Bosain@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020

    Every state has a different number of candidates on their ballot, because every state has different requirements to be on their ballot. Is this ruling going to require every state to accept every candidate? Even those with no chance of winning? Who should decide when someone has no chance of winning? (Silly question, it’s the state, of course.)

    • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      Is this ruling going to require every state to accept every candidate? Even those with no chance of winning?

      Only those thrown off the ballot using section 3 of the 14th amendment. Ballot access requirements in general have been before the court many times before and upheld generally, while some have been struck down when excessive or discriminatory.

      It’s legal to say something like all candidates must get signatures equal to 3% of the number of voters for the office in the last election in order to be on the ballot. It’s illegal to say something like black candidates must get signatures of 15% of voters.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Funny. Have you read the ruling? They absolutely do not stop at section 3 of the 14th. They are over turning 200 plus years of precedent in which states disqualified ineligible candidates.

        They opine that there is no bar to campaigning, just holding office. And that any disqualification must therefore come after the election, via a federal law or congressional framework.

        Which is fucking ridiculous.

    • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      8 months ago

      States are generally free to decide their own candidates for State level elections.

      Federal elections are subject to Federal law and the Federal Constitution. A State just deciding someone is disqualified based on their interpretation is both unconstitutional and incredibly stupid. It was always going to SCOTUS and it was always going to be decided this way.

      Me, I don’t want to live in a country where ANY level of government can just decide you are guilty of something without due process. And that’s what these states tried to do. The mad downvoters lack critical thinking ability and are going off emotion.

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        This is all a moot point. Trump simply does not qualify.

        It’s just like he was 34.

        He cannot hold that office. What the states do is irrelevant.

        Trump got due process through the congressional investigation that found he engaged in insurrection with a bi partisan panel.

        Nowhere does the Constitution even say due process is needed here.

        This is not a punishment. Trump has no right to run for president.

        He has to qualify.

        He does not qualify.

        • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          8 months ago

          This is all a moot point.

          You’re right, the Supreme Court ruled.

          Trump simply does not qualify.

          Nine Justices disagreed. Final Answer.

          congressional investigation that found he engaged in insurrection with a bi partisan panel.

          Meaningless. It has to go to the entire House. And BTW…where is the evidence from that bipartisan panel? O right, it was deleted before the other party took control of the House. Nothing to see here.

      • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        You didn’t look at the link, did you? There’s a map that shows the number of presidential candidates on the ballot in each state. If the federal government was in charge of presidential candidates, wouldn’t all those numbers be the same?

        • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          8 months ago

          Not if they didn’t file the correct paperwork (on time), pay the necessary fees, and I believe, have enough qualified signatures is each state in which you want to appear on the ballot.

          Making the argument that a state can otherwise disqualify because they believe you are guilty of insurrection is now moot. 9-0.

          • Krauerking@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            8 months ago

            So states do have the right to set requirements to be on their ballot for a federal election in their state?

            • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              8 months ago

              Yes, as long as the requirements are uniform in every state and don’t discriminate against any particular candidate. SCOTUS affirmed that last part today.

          • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            You just won my argument for me. Those are all state rules limiting who can be on a ballot. The state used to make the rules, now it seems there are no limitations whatsoever.

        • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’m neither a Constitutional scholar nor a lawyer. I’ll go with Marbury v Madison as who gets to decide those finer points.

          And they decided 9-0.

            • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              8 months ago

              their own ballots

              Not federal ballots.

              Except a state tried here and got slapped down 9-0. Seems to me it was deemed unconstitutional by the folks that decide that sort of thing.

                • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Lol. It’s ok to disagree with the decision. It’s ok to be mad at the decision. It’s ok to internet argue the constitutionality of the decision. All of it makes this >< much difference. Trump will be on the ballot, will be the nominee, and will be absolutely crushed by the most popular president in history. I don’t know why anyone is worried.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        States have been doing this for 232 years. It is wild that it’s suddenly now not Constitutional. Especially when the Constitution has this to say on the matter.

        The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

        So what law is there?

        And why the fuck is SCOTUS inserting itself into the electoral process again? It’s not mentioned anywhere in that section for a reason. If SCOTUS can influence elections then they can influence appointments and regulations about them, which makes the entire checks and balance system a dead letter.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        They’re going off of the lack of due process and any hope that his crimes will be answered for.

        Legally, it’s this but actually it’s that. The court can argue its points, if they survive. Meanwhile has anyone seen the unredacted Mueller report yet? No? No one? Hmm. HOW STRANGE. Legally, the courts are fine with that too, though.

        Trump’s process is going to come due, and we’d all prefer it be on live tv.