Can states remove Trump from their election tickets if he is convicted

[ThisIsMe]

If you arent allowed to run for office, than why would the votes for you count?

Well, if you aren’t allowed to run for office, then he’d be on no ballots.

However, it depends on what he is convicted for. They haven’t charged him with insurrection, so the only other disqualifying charge could be “rebellion”.

So, I assumed the OP was talking about if he was convicted but still legally eligible to run. In which case, if people write in his name, they have to count those.

 

[ThisIsMe]

This is not completely correct.

For many states, this is true but it is a state law thing and not applicable in all of them:

Write-in candidate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And that is more than enough to make winning nigh impossible. Of course the question would be which of those states would both invalidate his candidacy and would not allow a write in. I do not know what states have existing laws that would disallow Trump if any.

So, what I’m that wiki article are you referring to?

The point is, if trump is still legally eligible to run, but states decide to not put him on the ballot. What you end up with is those states not giving the repubs anyone to vote for, disenfranchising them, and again, provided he is legally eligible, those states would be involved in election interference.

I don’t think it’s going to happen, personally.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Even though he may well be convicted, I think he will be on a majority of states' ballots.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Way to display your devotion to Trump over your country, it people or its laws.

And you wonder why it is so clear you are in a cult rather than a party or group.

No, you have it all wrong. Both parties are cults and we were warned of the destruction that they would cause.

 

[Orangecat]

They are the last stop. You are dreaming if you think a conviction will get overturned though. There are no indications of any constitutional violation in any of the charges. Your fantasies about them and Trump's bloviating are not going to get SCOTUS to overrule a guilty verdict.

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Be sure to stock up on tissues and Preparation H, kiddo.

 

[Orangecat]

If you arent allowed to run for office, than why would the votes for you count?

“Than” and “then” are different words, john dope.

 

[YoursTruly]

You tards are really afraid of Trump aren't you?... it won't matter who comes out on top in the GOP primary... the dems will lose the white house....

We've all heard that before.

 

[FA_Q2]

So, what I’m that wiki article are you referring to?

?
That sentence makes no sense.

You made a point, people could still vote for Trump by writing him in. That is not true in all states and the wiki article outlines those states where writing in a candidate does not get them a 'vote.'

The point is, if trump is still legally eligible to run, but states decide to not put him on the ballot. What you end up with is those states not giving the repubs anyone to vote for, disenfranchising them, and again, provided he is legally eligible, those states would be involved in election interference.

And the point is incorrect.

It is state law that decides who is and is not put on the ballot. It is not 'election interference' for a state to follow it's own established election law. Third parties are quite used to this as they are not allowed on all state ballots all the time because they fail to attain whatever arbitrary requirements are applied in each state.

It may very well piss off the republicans to no end and it is likely that states will generally avoid this and I have no idea if any actually have laws like this on the books already. IF, that that is a big if, states changed the law specifically to target Trump as his election nears, you would have a point just like Trump would have had a point in 2020 had he actually challenged the laws that were changed before the election results were tabulated. If this is a case of laws already on the books then that is what happens when you run someone that is ineligible in your state.

I don’t think it’s going to happen, personally.

I do not think so either but I am not very confident in predicting what states will do if Trump is convicted of any of the charges except the fist ones filed. Lets face it, no one gives a shit he fucked a porn star or paid her to cover it up. The other charges though, they are far more serious.

 

[ThisIsMe]

?
That sentence makes no sense.

You made a point, people could still vote for Trump by writing him in. That is not true in all states and the wiki article outlines those states where writing in a candidate does not get them a 'vote.'


And the point is incorrect.

It is state law that decides who is and is not put on the ballot. It is not 'election interference' for a state to follow it's own established election law. Third parties are quite used to this as they are not allowed on all state ballots all the time because they fail to attain whatever arbitrary requirements are applied in each state.

It may very well piss off the republicans to no end and it is likely that states will generally avoid this and I have no idea if any actually have laws like this on the books already. IF, that that is a big if, states changed the law specifically to target Trump as his election nears, you would have a point just like Trump would have had a point in 2020 had he actually challenged the laws that were changed before the election results were tabulated. If this is a case of laws already on the books then that is what happens when you run someone that is ineligible in your state.

I do not think so either but I am not very confident in predicting what states will do if Trump is convicted of any of the charges except the fist ones filed. Lets face it, no one gives a shit he fucked a porn star or paid her to cover it up. The other charges though, they are far more serious.

For a state to remove him from the ballot, he would have to be convicted of something that makes him ineligible, in which case, he wouldn’t be on any ballot. A state wouldn’t be able to remove him from the ballot for frivolous reasons. Granted, I don’t know the laws of the states, so who knows.

again, likely it will never happen.

 

[surada]

I'd say no. The States have certain filing and eligibility requirements. But they're all constitutionally based.

The only relevant constitutionally recognized justification for removal of a presidential candidate from state primaries would be rebellion or insurrection. And even that would be debatable, as the the 14th amendment never expliciltly cites presidents. It prohibits an insurrectionist from 'holding any office'.

You can argue that Trump incited an insurrection on J6. But he's never been charged with it, let alone convicted. So there'd be zero legal justification to invoke the 14th amendment on the matter.

That being said, there are 50 states and I'm not familiar with all of their election rules. So possible? But I seriously doubt it.

Read the link on post #5.

 

[dudmuck]

Read the link on post #5.

post #5 is about felons running for president, but this is about section 3 of the 14th amendment.

 

[Skylar]

Read the link on post #5.

Yeah, it doesn't make an argument that a felon can't constitutionally be president. In fact, it refutes the idea in its opening paragraphs, laying out only 4 constitutional requirements

• The candidate contesting for the position must be a natural-born citizen of the United States of America.
• The candidate must be 35 years or older.
• The candidate should be a US resident for 14 years.
• The only additional exception is that the American Constitution prohibits a tenure of longer than 2 terms of 4 years each.

That's it. There is no constitutional requirement that Trump doesn't meet.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yeah, it doesn't make an argument that a felon can't constitutionally be president. In fact, it refutes the idea in its opening paragraphs, laying out only 4 constitutional requirements

• The candidate contesting for the position must be a natural-born citizen of the United States of America.
• The candidate must be 35 years or older.
• The candidate should be a US resident for 14 years.
• The only additional exception is that the American Constitution prohibits a tenure of longer than 2 terms of 4 years each.

That's it. There is no constitutional requirement that Trump doesn't meet.

But the question is not if he is eligible, the question is how much power do states have over their own ballots and who is on them. All states have those constitutional requirements BUT every single state also has other ballot access requirements that are not and have nothing to do with constitutionality.

While such laws do not currently exist as far as I can tell, for criminality at least, so I think you are correct in the specific case of Trump I do not see anything stopping states enacting laws that would bar ballot access to anyone convicted of certain crimes. Do you think such laws would be struck by the SCOTUS?

I have a suspicion that such laws may be passed after 2024 as this is a case I think no one would have imagined could occur. If you asked me 10 years ago if I thought someone could have run a successful campaign after being prosecuted for several of the charges listed, I would think you were nuts. Now we know better.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don’t think it matters..in the end? Just because a state doesn’t allow his name to be printed on the ballot doesn’t mean people can’t vote for him. In those states he will just be a “write in” candidate.

A ‘write in’ for Trump in a state that’s prohibited Trump from running would be recorded as no presidential candidate voted for.

 

[Meathead]

Who knows the state laws on who gets on a ballot?

Can states remove Trump from their election tickets if he is convicted?

Won't change a thing. The states that would do that would be liberal shitholes anyway,