Maine barred Donald Trump from the primary ballot Thursday, making it the second state in the country to block the former president from running again under a part of the Constitution that prevents insurrectionists from holding office.
The decision by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) is sure to be appealed. The Colorado Supreme Court last week found Trump could not appear on the ballot in that state, and the Colorado Republican Party has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The nation’s high court could resolve for all states whether Trump can run again.
When Republican states start doing this to democratic candidates for basically no reason, then democracy is completely over.
we can’t ignore the law just because they will. we can’t fail to act in good faith just because they will act in bad faith. we can’t negotiate with domestic terrorists.
deleted by creator
they act as though as long as we give in to their demands the republicans will be reasonable and keep their promises. they won’t. they’re gonna press their political advantage by any means they can find, be it legal, extralegal, or just out and out terrorism and if we concede anything to them they’ll just have more leverage by which to bypass or end american democracy in their quest for full autocratic power.
Thank you! This is an easy pill for some of us to swallow when these states are barring Trump, but blocking a candidate from the ballot for ANY reason at the state level sets a dangerous precedent.
Yeah, but straight-up ignoring the Constitution is also a big problem, so… Feels like maybe if your try to overturn an election you shouldn’t get to run for office.
I agree, but I also feel that decision should be made at the federal level thereby barring a candidate from ALL states rather than states selectively barring candidates they don’t like.
States run their own elections. It’s not up to the feds.
Some aspects of the elections can be dictated by the feds, some are left to the states. If it was purely up to the states the civil rights act would have no power.
Most are left to the states, I’d argue. Traditionally how the state determines and sends electors is entirely up to them, they just can’t disenfranchise their voters per the rights in the constitution.
There’s a reason that there is such a tiny list of reasons for justifying this. It’s supposed to be a near impossibility for anyone to have qualified for such a measure. And then there’s Trump who just blasted himself right past that hurdle.
Hopefully what comes out of this is a rigid set of standards that any state has to meet before resorting to this in the future. It remains to be seen whether those strictures will come down in favor of Trump or not. They may well decide that he’s met all the requirements for disqualification and he will be the benchmark (skidmark might be more accurate) going forward.
Except our constitution gives us 1 reason. Trump managed to break the 1 rule. Either we ignore the constitution or we follow it.
can you imagine that they won’t do this anyway, though? the house just passed an impeachment inquiry without even being able to articulate charges, out and out admitting that it’s a fishing expedition. no appeasement. we use every weapon in our arsenal to defend democracy from the terrorists.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
How does relieving the housing crisis lead to corporations buying cheap farmland?
And how’s any of that related to candidates being removed from the states’ ballots?
I think the commenter you’re replying to made some logical enough jumps.
Like it seems that they’re assuming people in Republican rural counties who start doing this to random candidates would move out, causing a localized housing crisis in that area that banks could come in and capitalize on like the vultures that they tend to act like. That would lead to the pattern that they’re painting in their comment.
So I can imagine how it’s all connected, but that said, I don’t claim to know the inner mind of this poster so I could be very wrong.
deleted by creator