Maine’s top election official removes Trump from 2024 ballot

[essentialsaltes]

"I am mindful that [this is unprecedented]. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection.”

The decision makes Maine the second state to disqualify Trump from office, after the Colorado Supreme Court handed down its own stunning ruling that removed him from the ballot earlier this month.

A bipartisan group of former state lawmakers filed the challenge against Trump.

[The decision can be appealed in court.]

 

[Brihaha]

Wow! Supreme Court better make lots of space on their docket for impending Trump cases. Space the likes of which the world has never seen lol!

 

[Yttrium]

I'm trying to think of the ways that the Supreme Court could handle these cases.

They could decide that Trump engaged in an insurrection and prohibit him being on the ballot anywhere. Or they could decide that there is insufficient evidence that he engaged in an insurrection and prohibit him from being removed from ballots. I have a hard time seeing either as likely, since it would seem to require results of a federal-level investigation, and the Supreme Court isn't in a position to perform that themselves.

They could decide that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President, since the President isn't specifically mentioned by it, and prohibit Trump from being removed from ballots. Possible, but one has to consider the intent of the 14th Amendment.

They could decide to just to punt on it and let the rulings of the state courts stand, since it's up to the states to choose electors after all. I think there's a decent possibility for this one.

What else? I'm looking forward to seeing what the Supreme Court comes up with.

 

[HTacianas]

"I am mindful that [this is unprecedented]. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection.”

The decision makes Maine the second state to disqualify Trump from office, after the Colorado Supreme Court handed down its own stunning ruling that removed him from the ballot earlier this month.

A bipartisan group of former state lawmakers filed the challenge against Trump.

[The decision can be appealed in court.]

Punishment first, trial later. Or in this case what need have we for a trial.

 

[Brihaha]

I'm trying to think of the ways that the Supreme Court could handle these cases.

They could decide that Trump engaged in an insurrection and prohibit him being on the ballot anywhere. Or they could decide that there is insufficient evidence that he engaged in an insurrection and prohibit him from being removed from ballots. I have a hard time seeing either as likely, since it would seem to require results of a federal-level investigation, and the Supreme Court isn't in a position to perform that themselves.

They could decide that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President, since the President isn't specifically mentioned by it, and prohibit Trump from being removed from ballots. Possible, but one has to consider the intent of the 14th Amendment.

They could decide to just to punt on it and let the rulings of the state courts stand, since it's up to the states to choose electors after all. I think there's a decent possibility for this one.

What else? I'm looking forward to seeing what the Supreme Court comes up with.

I believe many justices on our Supreme Court are terrified to take Trump cases and rule. I am not convinced they will take these appeals, especially if those states have filed their cases diligently and adhered to their state laws. I think most Americans are yearning to get some clarity from the Supremes but they may not be up to task, or our expectations.

 

[Yttrium]

I believe many justices on our Supreme Court are terrified to take Trump cases and rule. I am not convinced they will take these appeals, especially if those states have filed their cases diligently and adhered to their state laws. I think most Americans are yearning to get some clarity from the Supremes but they may not be up to task, or our expectations.

Well, that would effectively be my "punt on it" option.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I'm trying to think of the ways that the Supreme Court could handle these cases.

They could decide that Trump engaged in an insurrection and prohibit him being on the ballot anywhere.

I don't think that they could do that, as the states set the requirements for who can be on the ballot. For example, Michigan's Supreme Court said that Trump can be on the primary ballot because the Michigan constitution says nothing about whether primary candidates must meet the requirements for office.

Or they could decide that there is insufficient evidence that he engaged in an insurrection and prohibit him from being removed from ballots.

They could maybe do that - I know the Colorado decision explored that question in detail, and both courts that heard the case concluded that Trump had engaged in insurrection based on the evidence presented. In theory, they could review that evidence and conclude that it is insufficient proof of Trump having engaged in insurrection, which would mean that he couldn't be barred based on the 14th Amendment.

A full federal investigation isn't really necessary, because he's not being convicted of anything. It's a purely civil decision, and the barriers of evidence are lower in civil court. See E. Jean Carroll's defamation case against Trump for an example - the jury found that Trump had most likely committed the offense of which Carroll accused him, which meant that he was defaming her by calling her a liar. However, he was not convicted of sexual assault, nor was he punished for it. His punishment was purely for his defamation of Carroll.

They could decide that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President, since the President isn't specifically mentioned by it, and prohibit Trump from being removed from ballots. Possible, but one has to consider the intent of the 14th Amendment.

They could make that determination, though I don't think that they could prohibit Trump from being removed from ballots. Deciding that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the President would just mean that that could no longer be used as justification for excluding Trump from the ballot. States could, at least in theory, still find other ways to exclude him based on state law.

They could decide to just to punt on it and let the rulings of the state courts stand, since it's up to the states to choose electors after all. I think there's a decent possibility for this one.

I'd say it's probably 50/50 between this and making a ruling on the scope of the 14th Amendment. Honestly, I wouldn't put it past the Court to uphold the states' determinations on this one. There's pretty solid reasoning for the President being covered by the 14th.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

These are primary ballots, which are managed by the secretaries of state and the state party convention, not the FEC. Republicans will surely call foul against state's rights should the SC force these states to put a candidate the state disqualified on their state primary ballots, right? Right?

 

[Yttrium]

I don't think that they could do that, as the states set the requirements for who can be on the ballot. For example, Michigan's Supreme Court said that Trump can be on the primary ballot because the Michigan constitution says nothing about whether primary candidates must meet the requirements for office.

That's a very good point.

A full federal investigation isn't really necessary, because he's not being convicted of anything. It's a purely civil decision, and the barriers of evidence are lower in civil court. See E. Jean Carroll's defamation case against Trump for an example - the jury found that Trump had most likely committed the offense of which Carroll accused him, which meant that he was defaming her by calling her a liar. However, he was not convicted of sexual assault, nor was he punished for it. His punishment was purely for his defamation of Carroll.

Yes, but the Carroll case involved a civil trial, in which the evidence was thoroughly examined. The Supreme Court isn't a trial court. They need some examination of the evidence to decide whether Trump is eligible or not, and they're not really equipped to handle that.

They could make that determination, though I don't think that they could prohibit Trump from being removed from ballots. Deciding that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the President would just mean that that could no longer be used as justification for excluding Trump from the ballot. States could, at least in theory, still find other ways to exclude him based on state law.

Yes, good point.

I'd say it's probably 50/50 between this and making a ruling on the scope of the 14th Amendment. Honestly, I wouldn't put it past the Court to uphold the states' determinations on this one. There's pretty solid reasoning for the President being covered by the 14th.

Well, you would think there would be some way to apply the 14th Amendment, if it does include the president. It's never been done before for a president, so this might be an excellent test case.

 

[Brihaha]

If the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the incumbent president, then it's fairly worthless. I don't think the SC will overrule the Colorado decision on the republican party appeal. How can a president be excluded as an officer of the United States? The presidency is an office for which people are elected. And I'm not sure what grounds Donald Trump may appeal if he appeals at all.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm trying to think of the ways that the Supreme Court could handle these cases.

They could decide that Trump engaged in an insurrection and prohibit him being on the ballot anywhere. Or they could decide that there is insufficient evidence that he engaged in an insurrection and prohibit him from being removed from ballots. I have a hard time seeing either as likely, since it would seem to require results of a federal-level investigation, and the Supreme Court isn't in a position to perform that themselves.

They could decide that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President, since the President isn't specifically mentioned by it, and prohibit Trump from being removed from ballots. Possible, but one has to consider the intent of the 14th Amendment.

They could decide to just to punt on it and let the rulings of the state courts stand, since it's up to the states to choose electors after all. I think there's a decent possibility for this one.

What else? I'm looking forward to seeing what the Supreme Court comes up with.

The could decide that the states should wait on disqualification until a verdict is rendered in the "insurrection" case and clear the deck for that case to proceed.

 

[wing2000]

The could decide that the states should wait on disqualification until a verdict is rendered in the "insurrection" case and clear the deck for that case to proceed.

....there isn't time for that. Secretary of States have deadlines to finalize ballots....

 

[Hans Blaster]

....there isn't time for that. Secretary of States have deadlines to finalize ballots....

For the general election. Even the parties won't finalize their choices until after the DC trial.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Punishment first, trial later. Or in this case what need have we for a trial.

There are criteria for eligibility. If he were under 35, there would be no need for a trial, just a finding of fact. The criteria in the 14th Amendment may be more ambiguous than age, but they are still criteria in the Constitution.

 

[Valletta]

I'm trying to think of the ways that the Supreme Court could handle these cases.

They could decide that Trump engaged in an insurrection and prohibit him being on the ballot anywhere. Or they could decide that there is insufficient evidence that he engaged in an insurrection and prohibit him from being removed from ballots. I have a hard time seeing either as likely, since it would seem to require results of a federal-level investigation, and the Supreme Court isn't in a position to perform that themselves.

They could decide that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President, since the President isn't specifically mentioned by it, and prohibit Trump from being removed from ballots. Possible, but one has to consider the intent of the 14th Amendment.

They could decide to just to punt on it and let the rulings of the state courts stand, since it's up to the states to choose electors after all. I think there's a decent possibility for this one.

What else? I'm looking forward to seeing what the Supreme Court comes up with.

There is nothing to come up with. Trump has not been charged with insurrection nor convicted. The questions are, can any Democrat decide someone is guilty without bothering with a trial, throwing out the U.S. Constitution? And then based on the charge, use an old Civil War era law that was used to keep Confederates from running to deny the people a right to vote for the candidate of their choice.? Any support of such an attack on our Constitution, Supreme Court or not, will not be accepted.

 

[perplexed]

Punishment first, trial later. Or in this case what need have we for a trial.

??? was the chant "hang Mike Pence" or was it "Give Mike Pence a fair trial"

 

[HTacianas]

??? was the chant "hang Mike Pence" or was it "Give Mike Pence a fair trial"

When did Trump ever say that?

 

[Pommer]

If the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the incumbent president, then it's fairly worthless. I don't think the SC will overrule the Colorado decision on the republican party appeal. How can a president be excluded as an officer of the United States? The presidency is an office for which people are elected. And I'm not sure what grounds Donald Trump may appeal if he appeals at all.

The incumbent President is Joe Biden.

 

[perplexed]

When did Trump ever say that?

You know who said it and you know that Trumps reaction was very different to your reaction to this thread

 

[Hank77]

"I am mindful that [this is unprecedented]. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection.”

The decision makes Maine the second state to disqualify Trump from office, after the Colorado Supreme Court handed down its own stunning ruling that removed him from the ballot earlier this month.

A bipartisan group of former state lawmakers filed the challenge against Trump.

[The decision can be appealed in court.]

I found this video of Maine's Secretary of State explaining the law in Maine that brought about this decision.