Election Interference

[Moses]

It is, apparently, a serious offense against the constitution to interfere with the elections, including such actions as miscounting votes or attempting to influence others to do so.
One would think that attempts to remove a candidate from the ballot by anyone who is not authorized to do so would fall into this category. According to news reports, officials in at least three states attempted to remove a presidential candidate from their ballots despite having no Constitutional authority to do so. How is this not being prosecuted as election interference in the same manner as if these officials had otherwise taken actions exceeding the limits of their authority so as to ensure that a particular candidate would lose the election?

[Ken]

It is, apparently, a serious offense against the constitution to interfere with the elections, including such actions as miscounting votes or attempting to influence others to do so.
One would think that attempts to remove a candidate from the ballot by anyone who is not authorized to do so would fall into this category. According to news reports, officials in at least three states attempted to remove a presidential candidate from their ballots despite having no Constitutional authority to do so. How is this not being prosecuted as election interference in the same manner as if these officials had otherwise taken actions exceeding the limits of their authority so as to ensure that a particular candidate would lose the election?

You have this all mixed up.

First of all, it isn't a violation of the Constitution to interfere with elections. The right to vote isn't even in the Constitution, even though it should be. It is against Federal statue to interfere with elections but not the constitution. But those Federal laws aren't about ballot access. They are about interfering with the process of voting or vote counting.

Second, The qualifications for the office of the presidency are in the Constitution. There are five: (1) you have to be a natural born US Citizen, (2) you have to be at least 35 years old, (3) you have to have lived in the US for at least 14 years, (4) you can't have already served two terms as president, and (5) you cannot have engaged in insurrection against the United States.

Third, States are free to establish their own ballot access laws as elections are actually administered by the states, not the Federal government. And when you are voting, you are actually voting for state electors, not the President anyway. These ballot access laws include things like how many signatures you have to collect and what date you need to turn them in by in order to be on the ballot. No one has an automatic right to be on the ballot.

Fourth, it is the job and duty of state Secretaries of State to actually administer and enforce these laws and to run elections according to state and Federal law. This includes determining who is eligible to be on the ballot.

Fifth, it is actually the JOB of the courts to interpret the law when it is ambiguous as is the case with Trump's ballot access. In this case the Secretary of State of Colorado didn't just throw Trump off the ballot. What happened was some Republicans in CO challenged Trump's access to the ballot and it went to the State Supreme Court as is appropriate. The State Supreme Court found that Trump clearly failed test #5 above. That was what the Colorado Supreme Court found and clearly laid out in their decision. The Supreme Court left that part of their decision untouched. They didn't address it at all.

They were subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court, but not actually on the merits. The Supreme Court didn't actually even address whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection and is therefore, excluded from the office of the Presidency. They didn't touch that question and left the State court's findings stand. So as of today, Trump has been found to have illegally engaged in insurrection against the US and no court have overruled that finding. All they did was say that it is properly the role of Congress to pull him off the ballot, not the individual states. Which is not actually a standard or rule found anywhere in the Constitution. It was just simply the Court inventing reasons for why it needed to be Congress and not the states based on some argument of chaos.

So the process worked itself out exactly as it should have under US law. When a provision of the Constitution or statute is ambiguous it is up to the courts to interpret it.

[Josh]

It is, apparently, a serious offense against the constitution to interfere with the elections, including such actions as miscounting votes or attempting to influence others to do so.
One would think that attempts to remove a candidate from the ballot by anyone who is not authorized to do so would fall into this category. According to news reports, officials in at least three states attempted to remove a presidential candidate from their ballots despite having no Constitutional authority to do so. How is this not being prosecuted as election interference in the same manner as if these officials had otherwise taken actions exceeding the limits of their authority so as to ensure that a particular candidate would lose the election?

When it is done for me and my beliefs, it is protecting democracy, making our country great again, and ensuring election integrity.

When it is against me and my beliefs, it is destroying democracy, ruining our country, and committing election fraud.

I hope this simple guide was helpful.

[Ken]

It is, apparently, a serious offense against the constitution to interfere with the elections, including such actions as miscounting votes or attempting to influence others to do so.
One would think that attempts to remove a candidate from the ballot by anyone who is not authorized to do so would fall into this category. According to news reports, officials in at least three states attempted to remove a presidential candidate from their ballots despite having no Constitutional authority to do so. How is this not being prosecuted as election interference in the same manner as if these officials had otherwise taken actions exceeding the limits of their authority so as to ensure that a particular candidate would lose the election?

When it is done for me and my beliefs, it is protecting democracy, making our country great again, and ensuring election integrity.

When it is against me and my beliefs, it is destroying democracy, ruining our country, and committing election fraud.

I hope this simple guide was helpful.

So for you, it doesn't make any difference what the Constitution and law actually says. The only thing that matters to you is partisanship and whether a particular issue hurts or helps your side? What the Constitution and law actually says is irrelevant?

That explains a lot I guess.

[Josh]

It is, apparently, a serious offense against the constitution to interfere with the elections, including such actions as miscounting votes or attempting to influence others to do so.
One would think that attempts to remove a candidate from the ballot by anyone who is not authorized to do so would fall into this category. According to news reports, officials in at least three states attempted to remove a presidential candidate from their ballots despite having no Constitutional authority to do so. How is this not being prosecuted as election interference in the same manner as if these officials had otherwise taken actions exceeding the limits of their authority so as to ensure that a particular candidate would lose the election?

When it is done for me and my beliefs, it is protecting democracy, making our country great again, and ensuring election integrity.

When it is against me and my beliefs, it is destroying democracy, ruining our country, and committing election fraud.

I hope this simple guide was helpful.

So for you, it doesn't make any difference what the Constitution and law actually says. The only thing that matters to you is partisanship and whether a particular issue hurts or helps your side? What the Constitution and law actually says is irrelevant?

That explains a lot I guess.

Great insight, Ken.

[Robert]

So for you, it doesn't make any difference what the Constitution and law actually says.

That explains a lot I guess.

Don't speak for others.

[Moses]

So as of today, Trump has been found to have illegally engaged in insurrection against the US and no court have overruled that finding.

So he was found to have illegally engaged in insurrection but not found to have committed a crime?

[Moses]

Fifth, it is actually the JOB of the courts to interpret the law when it is ambiguous as is the case with Trump's ballot access. In this case the Secretary of State of Colorado didn't just throw Trump off the ballot. What happened was some Republicans in CO challenged Trump's access to the ballot and it went to the State Supreme Court as is appropriate. The State Supreme Court found that Trump clearly failed test #5 above. That was what the Colorado Supreme Court found and clearly laid out in their decision. The Supreme Court left that part of their decision untouched. They didn't address it at all.

It is, actually, the JOB of the courts to interpret the law and slap the hands of people like the Maine Secretary of State who who take upon themselves authority that belongs to Congress and not to the states.

[Ken]

So as of today, Trump has been found to have illegally engaged in insurrection against the US and no court have overruled that finding.

So he was found to have illegally engaged in insurrection but not found to have committed a crime?

No.

He was found to have engaged in insurrection, which makes him ineligible to hold the office of the President.

The criminality of engaging in insurrection is a different issue and the subject of the criminal courts, not elections officials.

Being age 30 is not illegal, nor is it illegal to have been born outside of the US. But those things disqualify you from the presidency even if they are not illegal. The State Court ruled similarly with respect to whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection.

[Ken]

Fifth, it is actually the JOB of the courts to interpret the law when it is ambiguous as is the case with Trump's ballot access. In this case the Secretary of State of Colorado didn't just throw Trump off the ballot. What happened was some Republicans in CO challenged Trump's access to the ballot and it went to the State Supreme Court as is appropriate. The State Supreme Court found that Trump clearly failed test #5 above. That was what the Colorado Supreme Court found and clearly laid out in their decision. The Supreme Court left that part of their decision untouched. They didn't address it at all.

It is, actually, the JOB of the courts to interpret the law and slap the hands of people like the Maine Secretary of State who who take upon themselves authority that belongs to Congress and not to the states.

No, the court doesn't slap hands. And there is actually NOTHING in the Constitution that says determining whether or not one engaged in insurrection is the job of Congress. The Constitution is entirely silent on that. So the Maine Secretary of State read the Constitution and interpreted it correctly. Then the Supreme Court came along and said "It looks like this is an area where we need to add some clarity, and they did"

They didn't overrule the findings of the Maine Secretary of State. Just like in Colorado, they didn't even address them. They just inserted themselves into the issue and that in order to prevent the chaos of different states making different rulings, we are going to determine this is something that Congress needs to do on a national level. Which again, is not a standard found anywhere in the Constitution. Just something they chose to determine.

Everyone was doing their job correctly here. No one's hands were slapped. And no court has actually challenged the findings of the Colorado Supreme Court that Trump did, in fact, engage in insurrection.

All of this could have been avoided if Republicans had chosen to nominate someone else who isn't an insurrectionist with 91 felony indictments across 3 states and the District of Columbia. Surely there is some Republican who isn't so egregiously tainted.