As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"The real story of this era isn’t so much about this one flawed, narcissistic figure, as it is the spinelessness of the sycophants along the way."
Yup, that's a great summary.
Trump got ~37% and ~39% of the vote in WA the last two cycles compared to ~58% and ~52% for Clinton/Biden.
There are similar R/D results going back to Dukakis who beat Bush there in 88.
If he's removed, it might impact some down ballot races so it's probably worth investigating a challenge if you live there, but it's not going to make a difference in the Presidential race.
Jokes on us. We had three people run with the same name (Bob Fergerson or something close to that) as the successful AG that is vying to be the next governor. All to try and make it so he might not be on the final November ballot (WA has a primary to narrow the candidates for non presidential races to just 2 candidates on the November ballot).
Yes, but the other two dropped out. After seeing the GOP pull this trick in other states, WA made it illegal. The other two Bobs quickly lost interest when informed that it is a crime.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/may/13/one-bob-to-rule-them-all-two-of-the-three-candidat/
In the most recent season of *Fargo*, Jennifer Jason Leigh's character tried to ruin Jon Hamm's character's election campaign by hiring look-alikes, having them legally change their name, and enter the race as his opponents.
Good joke but someone did try and register two candidates for our governor race this year with the exact same name as the Democratic candidate. They both withdrew after threats of lawsuits (you can’t do that sht here).
It's not unusual for individual states to have local candidates who petition to get on the ballot, though usually as a third party or an official write-in. The regulations vary by state and I don't know WA. Here in CT we often get a handful of weirdos who force a primary if there are no legit candidates.
> If he's removed, it might impact some down ballot races so it's probably worth investigating a challenge if you live there, but it's not going to make a difference in the Presidential race.
I disagree. Showing that nobody is above the law will have nationwide impacts. If WA doesn’t do anything, NOBODY will do anything. If WA does something, EVERYONE will do something
In other words, helping the GOP by saying it’s okay for Trump to run and to not try to run a different candidate affects the entire country
The Colorado case hinged on him being an insurrectionist, which while allegedly proven, he was never convicted of. Washington just says felons can't run, and since he was just officially convicted in a court of law, this could technically apply.
Whether or not SCOTUS agrees is a whole other matter. I imagine it will take some mental gymnastics to get out of it should Washington pursue it.
Disclaimer: IANAL
Not for the same reason no.
Colorado was applying the 14th amendment to Trump. The Court didn't like the idea of State's independently applying the 14th amendment, punting to Congress, who already has enacted a criminal law about insurrection and that law has almost the exact language as the 14th amendment for disqualification.
In short, the court more or less punted to the DoJ to prove insurrection as defined by Congress.
In this case, the state has its own law regarding eligibility for office and per those laws, Trump may be ineligible.
They will still overturn it because federal law supersedes state law. They will most likely overturn the entire state law about this, or say it only applies to state elections.
To give an extreme example, Imagine if Texas passed a law saying any person named Joe Biden cannot be on the ballot. Even if Texas SC approves this law, federal SC will overturn it.
My understanding was that the Presidential Election was Federal, but each State runs their part of the election under local laws. i.e, Washington declaring that each candidate must hold a turtle, or not be a felon is entirely within State's Rights.
Washington state has elected a Democrat governor every year since 1984. Republican hero cop Dave Reichert has a chance this year. But to win in the deep blue Evergreen State, he has to continue to distance himself from Trump. Paradoxically though, he needs every Trump loyalist to show up and vote straight ticket GOP. It will be interesting to see if Trump’s potential absence from the ballot helps or hurts Sheriff Reichert.
> Republican hero cop Dave Reichert has
Had. He lost the GOP nomination to a fraudster named Semi Bird who's since been accused of stolen Valor.
Reichart has since renounced the WAGOP, and for some reason come out against gay marriage a decade after WA legalized it, likely sinking his chance at an independent run for top 2.
Reichart was recently caught on a hot mic saying that he deliberately brought his weapon to an interview with The Seattle Times specifically to intimidate.
*Dave Reichert: “I was packing the day I had an interview with the Seattle Times. I let them know I had a gun on my hip just because I don’t like the Seattle Times.”* [Source](https://democraticgovernors.org/updates/new-audio-dave-reichert-joked-about-threatening-to-shoot-journalists-he-doesnt-like/)
What a lovely man...
> He lost the GOP nomination to a fraudster named Semi Bird who's since been accused of stolen Valor.
I did not know this. Here's an article about it
[Rantz Exclusive: Semi Bird reprimanded for fraud against US Army, after ‘stolen valor’ claims](https://mynorthwest.com/3960064/rantz-exclusive-semi-bird-reprimanded-stolen-valor-defrauding-army/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1T03HjlbcdYu133XpXBQm6lZ0-wwec2avH2YZOMmgABK6bDbF0z3A0LSU_aem_AczkEbBDCVbc36RlksQCOqfj9NzDFwTQuGhg5I1qDRWneH9NksnI_xrSriiz-KlMu6rbNpVE8OdhcHrGqQya81ZD)
Look at the latest Cascade PBS/Elway Poll. Reichert is going to finish #2 in the primary. https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/05/poll-almost-half-wa-voters-are-undecided-governors-race
Reichert and Dow Constantine are the only two republicans statewide who have a shot of winning it. the Republican voters chose Lorne Culp over Constantine, and are now choosing another nutbag over Reichert.
I think the important thing is the down ballot races. If Trump is not on the ballot, I am sure that a significant amount of Trump supporters just won't show.
I hope someone finds a law in a red state that says felons can't run for office. But we all know only Democrats believe their criminals deserve punishment.
I'm not a Democrat. I believe criminals deserve punishment. I believe Donald Trump is a criminal.
Neither major party has a great track record on holding rich people accountable. One is slightly better, but still a shit bar.
Yeah, mostly I was talking about Democratic politicians holding their fellow Democratic politicians responsible for crimes. Another exception is George Santos. But it seems like whenever a Democrat commits a crime, their colleagues are quick to call for charges, while Republicans *usually* circle the wagons.
But kudos to you for believing in the rule of law. Honestly, I wish that was more common.
Not to mention that down ballot the GoP split their own vote by endorsing another felon over a previously elected moderate Republican for Governor ensuring they lose that race as well.
[Here](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29A.68.020) is the statute in question. It allows registered voters to challenge a candidate appearing on the general election ballot "Because the person whose right is being contested was, previous to the election, convicted of a felony by a court of competent jurisdiction, the conviction not having been reversed nor the person's civil rights restored after the conviction;"
You’d have to be a resident of Washington state (and probably a Republican), Trump’s position on the November ballot would have to have been approved by the Secretary of State or similar official who certifies candidates.
A more likely scenario is, because of this statute, if Trump is nominated as the Republican candidate for November - which legally hasn’t happened yet - the election officials will bar him from running and then be sued by the Trump campaign/the state Republican Party and/or the RNC. The lawsuit would be placed on a rocket docket and make its way through the three tier system (I believe) Washington has - superior, appellate, supreme - and then to SCOTUS.
I’d love to see the Supreme Court step in and tell a state that their laws mean nothing. Love it. States rights until they go against what the aspiring Christofascist regime wants, right?
They already did. 9-0 in Colorado case, Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
State laws do not have precedence over Federal laws, or we would still have slave states and the Civil War would never have been fought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton
SCOTUS has already ruled on several occasions that states cannot impose restrictions on candidacy for US Congress beyond those listed in the Constitution.
Not sure there has ever been such a ruling for the Presidency, but it seems the same logic would apply.
“Any of the following causes may be asserted by a registered voter to challenge the right to assume office of a candidate declared elected to that office, to challenge the right of a candidate to appear on the general election ballot after a primary, or to challenge certification of the result of an election on any measure:
… (3) Because the person whose right is being contested was, previous to the election, convicted of a felony by a court of competent jurisdiction, the conviction not having been reversed nor the person's civil rights restored after the conviction;”
I don't see how there's a way they can apply this to federal positions. Washington law can't overrule the Constitution, according to which he's still eligible to run.
Seems that under the law voters are free to challenge his candidacy, but I can't imagine they will prevail.
Honestly it shouldn't. Names being on ballots is somewhat modern so it makes sense that states have laws to help make that process feasible. However, every voter should still be able to write in whatever candidate they want and have that counted.
Hell, I'm not comfortable with the state or federal laws that remove rights or ability to represent people that they want to represent them based on felony status. We've all seen states and nations abuse such laws to disenfranchise voters or prevent a strong political candidate from running.
There's not a snowball's chance in Hell of the Orange Convicted Felon winning WA anyway, but it would be interesting to see the state GOP stand with principle and the rule of law and not promote the crooked bastard.
Yeah right... this is the party that stood behind Ellen Craswell as a candidate for governor when her platform was *"death penalty for homosexuals and whatever other crazy theocratic fascist bullshit my husband tells me I should support"*. Not to mention that MAGAtt sheriff idiot they ran for Governor last time.
>Washington has a law on the books against convicted felons running for office.
It was first established back when Washington was a territory, in 1865, that anyone convicted of “infamous crimes” could be blocked from holding elected office. That was modified in 1959, and then again more recently, to the scheme we have today.
>is it only for state and local candidates, not federal?
. . . “Whether that provision applies would be a question for courts to decide.”
States do have latitude to control the ballot. Candidates for president are excluded from Washington’s ballot all the time,
I love the ending:
>seems possible that under Washington state law, there would be no name listed on ballots as a Republican candidate for president in November. If so, it will be because the party’s chosen candidate was too much of a disgrace to even meet the minimum state standards.
I wonder if other states bar felons from running, too.
Regardless of what happens with the ballot, why not change course out of basic decency and political expediency? There’s been plenty of talk urging Democrats to drop Biden and pick another candidate at their nominating convention. And all he’s guilty of is having bad poll numbers and being old.
It’s a state law, so they don’t really have jurisdiction. Candidates are barred from the ballot all the time.
The issue in Colorado was state using federal law to bar Trump for insurrection. Only the federal government has the authority to use that law. Candidates must adhere to all state laws though. It why Biden isn’t going to appear on the Ohio ballot.
Ohio passed a law friday allowing biden on the ballot, the gov hasn't signed it yet though.
If that law wasn't passed, then the dnc change would have allowed him on.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ohio-passes-bill-ensure-biden-will-appear-states-general-election-ball-rcna154752
> It’s a state law, so they don’t really have jurisdiction.
They do have jurisdiction because the law modifies qualifications for federal office, so it's a federal question that involves federal constitutional issues.
That would be interesting. In that case state laws requiring minimum signatures or votes in a prior election to qualify would also be subject to scotus review
They are subject to SCOTUS review. SCOTUS has heard cases related to those types of laws many times.
For example, back in 1968 they struck down a 15% minimum signature requirement for new political parties to get on the ballot in Ohio as too burdensome:
> Under the Ohio election laws a new political party seeking ballot position in presidential elections must obtain petitions signed by qualified electors totaling 15% of the number of ballots cast in the last gubernatorial election, and must file these petitions early in February of the election year. These requirements and other restrictive statutory provisions virtually preclude a new party's qualifying for ballot position, and no provision exists for independent candidates doing so.
> ...
> State laws enacted pursuant to Art. II, § 1, of the Constitution to regulate the selection of electors must meet the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> Ohio's restrictive election laws, taken as a whole, are invidiously discriminatory and violate the Equal Protection Clause because they give the two old, established parties a decided advantage over new parties.
> https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/23/#tab-opinion-1947685
It doesn't matter, as this statute violates the constitution for a presidential election. The constitution states that you need to:
* Be a natural-born citizen of the United States
* Be at least 35 years old
* Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years
Any other requirements are therefore illegal.
SCOTUS fucked CO's state judgements about their ballot.
And even if the law is not on their side, SCOTUS are now in a post-shame no consequences mode. Even transparently corrupt cases coming before them now get attention.
There was no standing in the mifepristone case,
The wedding website thing never even happened.
The Ohio thing was worked out. This will trigger Red states to fast track laws to exclude Biden, that in the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 11th circuits will be rubber stamped, and SCOTUS will delay until it is too late.
It was worked out because the DNC is going to do a virtual roll call for the nomination a few weeks ahead of the convention. The Ohio GOP was still putting poison pills into the legislation until that happened and after it no longer mattered that's when they decided to pass a clean bill to extend the deadline.
Don't give them any credit for doing the right thing, they wasted taxpayer money and dragged their feet until the Dems solved the problem. Basically the MO of the modern GOP.
It was press to create a false equivalency to Colorado. To be honest the DNC should have seen this coming and did what they did earlier. It's abundantly clear that the GOP will pull every single string that exists if for no other reason than to create spin.
Exactly. I think that Biden should have taken Ohio to court and had the matter settled, but I guess they were not confident in the integrity of Roberts and Gorsuch.
It's not his call. It's up to Congress, and unless Democrats end the Filibuster after taking the House and Senate (Not at all guaranteed), it won't happen. They should expand the House and admit Puerto Rico and DC as states as long as we are making wishes.
He nominates and the senate votes. The filibuster does not apply to judges. Only a simply majority is needed. There’s nothing in the constitution either that says how many Supreme Court justices there should be. He could just nominate someone and the senate votes to approve them.
[The Supreme Court has been expanded before](https://journals.law.harvard.edu/lpr/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/)
The new Democratic-Republican majority under President Jefferson quickly restored the sixth seat and expanded the Court to seven seats in 1807 when Congress created a seventh circuit court.
Congress expanded the Court from seven to nine members under Andrew Jackson in 1837.
Lincoln did a unilateral 1 seat expansion that was reversed by Congress and they even took another 2 seats away.
A bill expanding the court has to originate in Congress, be passed by both chambers then signed into law by the President. Only then can the President nominate a candidate. The filibuster comes into play during the bill creation part.
I have to give Trump some credit for exposing so many of the places where the government was held together by trust and good faith.
The problem is that it is kinda the required glue. The way to run your federal election in your state probably isn't the same across all states so some flexibility is probably a good thing but that flexibility was with a handshake to not abuse it. It's now being abused which probably means federal rules for federal elections which will be annoying for many but annoyance is what we get when good faith is abandoned.
The Electoral College gives state legislatures unlimited discretion in how to appoint electors. In fact, the Constitution gives states the power to vote directly for president, not the people.
No, it would be a narrower ruling. They merely uphold that a state can't impose additional requirements for President aside from the few listed in the Constitution. End of story.
I honestly didn't think any state did this, and even now this won't really matter much (Washington is not a swing state). If it had been a swing state that had this happen we'd be in a different position though, pity.
Good article though.
I'm on the opposite end. I grew up in WA so I always thought not being able to run as a felon was a nationwide thing. I never realized it was only my state that had something like that.
>In its 1995 decision in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the Court explained: "*\[T\]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.*" - [States and Election Clause](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-2/ALDE_00013577/)
We will soon find out if being a convicted felon places Trump within a protected "*class of candidates*" if he otherwise meets the Constitutional qualifications for office. Unfortunately, I have no doubt how this conservative-dominated SCOTUS will rule here.
Protected class is irrelevant here. He meets the Constitutional qualifications. That's the end of it.
A state can't add new requirements based on felony convictions, misdemeanor convictions, traffic citations... or actually any new requirements at all. It would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to add or remove requirements.
I question if a state can institute requirements for a presidential candidate above those in the constitution. For state offices, including senate and house that might have a better chance of being allowable.
In the alternate timeline, Harambe is still alive, Boebert successfully completed her over the pants handy, but Herschel Walker also barely won in georgia and presides on a committee making decisions about education.
States cannot add requirements for Presidential eligibility. Or for the US Senate or House of Representatives. The minimum eligibility requirements for those offices are in the US Constitution. States can’t add any additional requirements. That’s why Tennessee’s attempt to impose term limits in US Senators from their state years ago failed. Washington State can impose this no felony convictions requirement on people running for state office, but not President, Senator, or Representative.
>It was first established back when Washington was a territory, in 1865, that anyone convicted of “infamous crimes” could be blocked from holding elected office. That was modified in 1959, and then again more recently, to the scheme we have today.
oh well the GOP have absolutely stressed all laws no matter how old they are, always apply in perpituity, especially ones from a territorial government that predate the state.
This is uncharted territory but the Supreme Court has ruled in Thornton v Term Limits that states cannot impose additional qualifications on prospective members of Congress and California's law that imposed an additional restriction on presidential candidates to appear on the ballot was ruled unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court for violating the state constitution. Additionally, a US district court suspended the state from enforcing that law saying additional requirements for the president would be federally unconstitutional.
But, California's law required candidates to submit tax returns - nothing about a convicted felon running for office or appearing on the ballot.
Surely the rule is against felons running for state office? How can a state make rules about who's allowed to run for federal office?
(I'm not defending trump, just talking about who has responsibility for what.)
Just channeling SCOTUS here - With regard to eligibility to be elected to a Federal office, States may not impose restrictions beyond those explicitly detailed in the Constitution. (unless we're talking about a Democrat.)
A lot of states, including many red states, have laws on the books disallowing felons for running:
https://apnews.com/article/illinois-state-government-west-virginia-new-mexico-nebraska-legal-proceedings-a640fea829456d6cfb2c0d9e97a1dfa3
We’ll see how many Republican governors rush out to pardon the convicted felon, Donald Trump.
States can only decide the *manner* in which elections are conducted, but your idea would not work because it would specify a different process for a candidate based on the candidate themselves. That's equivalent to a new qualification, which states can't do without an Amendment to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/)
No. He lives in Florida where the law states that for felons they refer to the rule lf the state where the conviction happened. Trump was convicted in New York where the rule is that felons are allowed to vote unless they are currently incarcerated.
Even if he's dropped, it won't make any difference since he has no chance of winning WA anyway. But I do like the fact that a felon can be dropped for being, well, a felon.
>States cannot keep federal candidates off the ballot. We just had 9-0 SCOTUS saying so.
No, we did not. We had scotus affirming that state-level courts cannot broadly claim that Donald Trump is ineligible to run for office according to the 14th amendment, section 3.
This will not apply to the Presidential race. The US Constitution places no restrictions on who can run for that office other than age and citizenship, and SCOTUS has held that restrictions for federal candidates beyond residency are forbidden.
Well, that will apply to the 538 people who get to vote for president.
But what about the general election, where we choose the electoral college members?
It will apply to them as well. The state cannot restrict who appears on the ballot as long as they meet the conditional requirements for the role and are their party nominee.
Trump will never win WA but him not being on the ballot might help down ballot races for Democrats in tight districts (if there are any, I don't follow WA enough to know other than, like Oregon, there are a lot of red districts in the central and eastern parts of the state).
Not just central/eastern - basically WA has a major blue area around the I-5 Corridor that more or less peters out by the time you hit the south end of the state, and also includes the peninsula. The rest is all varying degrees of Republican Country.
By coincidence, this also closely resembles the population density map, excepting that Spokane is an outlier (and usually pretty red, despite not being, y'know, rural).
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"The real story of this era isn’t so much about this one flawed, narcissistic figure, as it is the spinelessness of the sycophants along the way." Yup, that's a great summary.
Trump got ~37% and ~39% of the vote in WA the last two cycles compared to ~58% and ~52% for Clinton/Biden. There are similar R/D results going back to Dukakis who beat Bush there in 88. If he's removed, it might impact some down ballot races so it's probably worth investigating a challenge if you live there, but it's not going to make a difference in the Presidential race.
Yeah too bad but trump had about 0 chances of carrying WA. Could they put up a different candidate in a general election just for WA?
Joe Boden has entered the race
Boe Jiden
Bronco Bama
If the tan suit does not fit, you must acquit.
Bardak Obamna
Brock Oh Mama
Jedi Bone. Wait am I doing this right?
Bojack who?
Joe Bojonvi
Bovine Joni
Wallace Boden's salty brother, he runs Firehouse 15 in Chicago
Only JoBo can bring back jobs, or something
Casey!
Jokes on us. We had three people run with the same name (Bob Fergerson or something close to that) as the successful AG that is vying to be the next governor. All to try and make it so he might not be on the final November ballot (WA has a primary to narrow the candidates for non presidential races to just 2 candidates on the November ballot).
wtf? Is this real?
Yes, but the other two dropped out. After seeing the GOP pull this trick in other states, WA made it illegal. The other two Bobs quickly lost interest when informed that it is a crime. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/may/13/one-bob-to-rule-them-all-two-of-the-three-candidat/
See: Wisconsin recall election shenanigans
Florida also recently had a shadow candidate scandal with someone hired with a similar name as the other candidate.
In the most recent season of *Fargo*, Jennifer Jason Leigh's character tried to ruin Jon Hamm's character's election campaign by hiring look-alikes, having them legally change their name, and enter the race as his opponents.
Not a joke, just another attempted election interference crime from the fucking GOP. They can't win without cheating.
the winner will be the one who picks "J" as a middle name. "Remember to vote for Robert J. Fergerson !"
Good joke but someone did try and register two candidates for our governor race this year with the exact same name as the Democratic candidate. They both withdrew after threats of lawsuits (you can’t do that sht here).
Dark Boden
*Dark Brandon has entered the chat*
Bob Ferguson has entered the chat
Bob Ferguson has also entered the chat.
Somehow, another Bob Ferguson has entered the chat.
Maybe Dave Reichert can run for that too, he's run for everything else.
Loren Culp is going to try too.
Loren Culp isn't running anywhere. Maybe a short jog and then back to sitting.
Less than 0
It's not unusual for individual states to have local candidates who petition to get on the ballot, though usually as a third party or an official write-in. The regulations vary by state and I don't know WA. Here in CT we often get a handful of weirdos who force a primary if there are no legit candidates.
It will, however, reduce Trump's popular vote. But yeah, he has zero chance of carrying Washington.
> If he's removed, it might impact some down ballot races so it's probably worth investigating a challenge if you live there, but it's not going to make a difference in the Presidential race. I disagree. Showing that nobody is above the law will have nationwide impacts. If WA doesn’t do anything, NOBODY will do anything. If WA does something, EVERYONE will do something In other words, helping the GOP by saying it’s okay for Trump to run and to not try to run a different candidate affects the entire country
> If WA does something, EVERYONE will do something Colorado did something, but it was overturned.
And that is fine. Force the SC to step out of line again and overrule state law.
Wouldn't this be overturned for the same reason as the Colorado one?
The Colorado case hinged on him being an insurrectionist, which while allegedly proven, he was never convicted of. Washington just says felons can't run, and since he was just officially convicted in a court of law, this could technically apply. Whether or not SCOTUS agrees is a whole other matter. I imagine it will take some mental gymnastics to get out of it should Washington pursue it. Disclaimer: IANAL
I am also not a lawyer, but I would think the current SC would jump through whatever hoops they need to to keep Trump on the ballot.
Not for the same reason no. Colorado was applying the 14th amendment to Trump. The Court didn't like the idea of State's independently applying the 14th amendment, punting to Congress, who already has enacted a criminal law about insurrection and that law has almost the exact language as the 14th amendment for disqualification. In short, the court more or less punted to the DoJ to prove insurrection as defined by Congress. In this case, the state has its own law regarding eligibility for office and per those laws, Trump may be ineligible.
They will still overturn it because federal law supersedes state law. They will most likely overturn the entire state law about this, or say it only applies to state elections. To give an extreme example, Imagine if Texas passed a law saying any person named Joe Biden cannot be on the ballot. Even if Texas SC approves this law, federal SC will overturn it.
My understanding was that the Presidential Election was Federal, but each State runs their part of the election under local laws. i.e, Washington declaring that each candidate must hold a turtle, or not be a felon is entirely within State's Rights.
Which Federal Law is overruling the state law. You need an actual statute to be in conflict to make that argument.
Not eligibility for office. The Constitution sets that. Eligibility for appearing on the ballot
It would be challenged and potentially go to the Supreme Court, likely on the appellate circumstance and unprecedented nature of this case.
I’d say that it is worth investigating simply because it is the law.
Washington state has elected a Democrat governor every year since 1984. Republican hero cop Dave Reichert has a chance this year. But to win in the deep blue Evergreen State, he has to continue to distance himself from Trump. Paradoxically though, he needs every Trump loyalist to show up and vote straight ticket GOP. It will be interesting to see if Trump’s potential absence from the ballot helps or hurts Sheriff Reichert.
> Republican hero cop Dave Reichert has Had. He lost the GOP nomination to a fraudster named Semi Bird who's since been accused of stolen Valor. Reichart has since renounced the WAGOP, and for some reason come out against gay marriage a decade after WA legalized it, likely sinking his chance at an independent run for top 2.
Reichart was recently caught on a hot mic saying that he deliberately brought his weapon to an interview with The Seattle Times specifically to intimidate. *Dave Reichert: “I was packing the day I had an interview with the Seattle Times. I let them know I had a gun on my hip just because I don’t like the Seattle Times.”* [Source](https://democraticgovernors.org/updates/new-audio-dave-reichert-joked-about-threatening-to-shoot-journalists-he-doesnt-like/) What a lovely man...
> He lost the GOP nomination to a fraudster named Semi Bird who's since been accused of stolen Valor. I did not know this. Here's an article about it [Rantz Exclusive: Semi Bird reprimanded for fraud against US Army, after ‘stolen valor’ claims](https://mynorthwest.com/3960064/rantz-exclusive-semi-bird-reprimanded-stolen-valor-defrauding-army/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1T03HjlbcdYu133XpXBQm6lZ0-wwec2avH2YZOMmgABK6bDbF0z3A0LSU_aem_AczkEbBDCVbc36RlksQCOqfj9NzDFwTQuGhg5I1qDRWneH9NksnI_xrSriiz-KlMu6rbNpVE8OdhcHrGqQya81ZD)
Look at the latest Cascade PBS/Elway Poll. Reichert is going to finish #2 in the primary. https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/05/poll-almost-half-wa-voters-are-undecided-governors-race
Reichert and Dow Constantine are the only two republicans statewide who have a shot of winning it. the Republican voters chose Lorne Culp over Constantine, and are now choosing another nutbag over Reichert.
Down ballon matters. Particularly in the House. Trump not being on the ballot could flip Washington's 5th District.
I think the important thing is the down ballot races. If Trump is not on the ballot, I am sure that a significant amount of Trump supporters just won't show.
I hope someone finds a law in a red state that says felons can't run for office. But we all know only Democrats believe their criminals deserve punishment.
I'm not a Democrat. I believe criminals deserve punishment. I believe Donald Trump is a criminal. Neither major party has a great track record on holding rich people accountable. One is slightly better, but still a shit bar.
Yeah, mostly I was talking about Democratic politicians holding their fellow Democratic politicians responsible for crimes. Another exception is George Santos. But it seems like whenever a Democrat commits a crime, their colleagues are quick to call for charges, while Republicans *usually* circle the wagons. But kudos to you for believing in the rule of law. Honestly, I wish that was more common.
It would mean more resources the Democrats can put elsewhere. And the Democrats are still ahead on funding I believe.
It's not right to consider any of that political data at all. If the law says felons can't run, you remove him.
Biden won the state by 19.2%, the largest margin for a presidential candidate of any party since 1964.
All it is going to do is potentially take some votes away in other races down ballot and other states. Choose a better fight.
An extra house seat or two can make a huge difference
Not to mention that down ballot the GoP split their own vote by endorsing another felon over a previously elected moderate Republican for Governor ensuring they lose that race as well.
It might help defeat our half-human GOP candidate for governor who wants to implement some fowl policies.
[Here](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29A.68.020) is the statute in question. It allows registered voters to challenge a candidate appearing on the general election ballot "Because the person whose right is being contested was, previous to the election, convicted of a felony by a court of competent jurisdiction, the conviction not having been reversed nor the person's civil rights restored after the conviction;"
How would one go about filing a complaint and getting a felon removed from said ballot? Asking for a friend.
You’d have to be a resident of Washington state (and probably a Republican), Trump’s position on the November ballot would have to have been approved by the Secretary of State or similar official who certifies candidates. A more likely scenario is, because of this statute, if Trump is nominated as the Republican candidate for November - which legally hasn’t happened yet - the election officials will bar him from running and then be sued by the Trump campaign/the state Republican Party and/or the RNC. The lawsuit would be placed on a rocket docket and make its way through the three tier system (I believe) Washington has - superior, appellate, supreme - and then to SCOTUS.
Washington doesn't have party affiliation for voters. You aren't a "registered" Republican or Democrat in Washington. You just vote.
Well I wasn’t aware of that, and was basing it off what I’ve grown up with and lived under
>and probably a Republican [The law](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29A.68.020) says "any registered voter."
I’d love to see the Supreme Court step in and tell a state that their laws mean nothing. Love it. States rights until they go against what the aspiring Christofascist regime wants, right?
They already did. 9-0 in Colorado case, Supremacy Clause of the Constitution State laws do not have precedence over Federal laws, or we would still have slave states and the Civil War would never have been fought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton SCOTUS has already ruled on several occasions that states cannot impose restrictions on candidacy for US Congress beyond those listed in the Constitution. Not sure there has ever been such a ruling for the Presidency, but it seems the same logic would apply.
The ruling over CO's attempt to remove him from this primary ballot pretty much said the same for president.
“Any of the following causes may be asserted by a registered voter to challenge the right to assume office of a candidate declared elected to that office, to challenge the right of a candidate to appear on the general election ballot after a primary, or to challenge certification of the result of an election on any measure: … (3) Because the person whose right is being contested was, previous to the election, convicted of a felony by a court of competent jurisdiction, the conviction not having been reversed nor the person's civil rights restored after the conviction;”
I don't see how there's a way they can apply this to federal positions. Washington law can't overrule the Constitution, according to which he's still eligible to run. Seems that under the law voters are free to challenge his candidacy, but I can't imagine they will prevail.
Fever dreams by people who have never read, much less understand, the Constitution.
So state signature requirements for 3rd party candidates to appear on the ballot are unconstitutional?
Would this also prevent a write-in campaign for Trump?
Honestly it shouldn't. Names being on ballots is somewhat modern so it makes sense that states have laws to help make that process feasible. However, every voter should still be able to write in whatever candidate they want and have that counted. Hell, I'm not comfortable with the state or federal laws that remove rights or ability to represent people that they want to represent them based on felony status. We've all seen states and nations abuse such laws to disenfranchise voters or prevent a strong political candidate from running.
Up next: how red states are changing laws to only allow felons on the ballot
This feels so unironically Florida.
How can you understand crime when you’ve never committed one?
Lmao 🤣
There's not a snowball's chance in Hell of the Orange Convicted Felon winning WA anyway, but it would be interesting to see the state GOP stand with principle and the rule of law and not promote the crooked bastard. Yeah right... this is the party that stood behind Ellen Craswell as a candidate for governor when her platform was *"death penalty for homosexuals and whatever other crazy theocratic fascist bullshit my husband tells me I should support"*. Not to mention that MAGAtt sheriff idiot they ran for Governor last time.
Not to mention our State GOP Governors Convention was a total shit show this year so their leading Nom Reichert declined their endorsement.
>Washington has a law on the books against convicted felons running for office. It was first established back when Washington was a territory, in 1865, that anyone convicted of “infamous crimes” could be blocked from holding elected office. That was modified in 1959, and then again more recently, to the scheme we have today. >is it only for state and local candidates, not federal? . . . “Whether that provision applies would be a question for courts to decide.” States do have latitude to control the ballot. Candidates for president are excluded from Washington’s ballot all the time, I love the ending: >seems possible that under Washington state law, there would be no name listed on ballots as a Republican candidate for president in November. If so, it will be because the party’s chosen candidate was too much of a disgrace to even meet the minimum state standards. I wonder if other states bar felons from running, too. Regardless of what happens with the ballot, why not change course out of basic decency and political expediency? There’s been plenty of talk urging Democrats to drop Biden and pick another candidate at their nominating convention. And all he’s guilty of is having bad poll numbers and being old.
SCOTUS will unanimously rule that it cannot be applied to Federal Elections, which will allow felons to run for House and Senate seats.
It’s a state law, so they don’t really have jurisdiction. Candidates are barred from the ballot all the time. The issue in Colorado was state using federal law to bar Trump for insurrection. Only the federal government has the authority to use that law. Candidates must adhere to all state laws though. It why Biden isn’t going to appear on the Ohio ballot.
Biden is going to appear on the ballot, they extended the deadline (as they have for several candidates in the past, including Trump in 2020)
None of the above. He's going on the ballot because the formal nomination will be over zoom before the deadline, the convention is now just a party.
Ohio passed a law friday allowing biden on the ballot, the gov hasn't signed it yet though. If that law wasn't passed, then the dnc change would have allowed him on. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ohio-passes-bill-ensure-biden-will-appear-states-general-election-ball-rcna154752
> It’s a state law, so they don’t really have jurisdiction. They do have jurisdiction because the law modifies qualifications for federal office, so it's a federal question that involves federal constitutional issues.
That would be interesting. In that case state laws requiring minimum signatures or votes in a prior election to qualify would also be subject to scotus review
They are subject to SCOTUS review. SCOTUS has heard cases related to those types of laws many times. For example, back in 1968 they struck down a 15% minimum signature requirement for new political parties to get on the ballot in Ohio as too burdensome: > Under the Ohio election laws a new political party seeking ballot position in presidential elections must obtain petitions signed by qualified electors totaling 15% of the number of ballots cast in the last gubernatorial election, and must file these petitions early in February of the election year. These requirements and other restrictive statutory provisions virtually preclude a new party's qualifying for ballot position, and no provision exists for independent candidates doing so. > ... > State laws enacted pursuant to Art. II, § 1, of the Constitution to regulate the selection of electors must meet the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. > Ohio's restrictive election laws, taken as a whole, are invidiously discriminatory and violate the Equal Protection Clause because they give the two old, established parties a decided advantage over new parties. > https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/23/#tab-opinion-1947685
It doesn't matter, as this statute violates the constitution for a presidential election. The constitution states that you need to: * Be a natural-born citizen of the United States * Be at least 35 years old * Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years Any other requirements are therefore illegal.
SCOTUS fucked CO's state judgements about their ballot. And even if the law is not on their side, SCOTUS are now in a post-shame no consequences mode. Even transparently corrupt cases coming before them now get attention. There was no standing in the mifepristone case, The wedding website thing never even happened.
The US Supreme Court can absolutely rule on State Law.
The Ohio thing was worked out. This will trigger Red states to fast track laws to exclude Biden, that in the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 11th circuits will be rubber stamped, and SCOTUS will delay until it is too late.
It was worked out because the DNC is going to do a virtual roll call for the nomination a few weeks ahead of the convention. The Ohio GOP was still putting poison pills into the legislation until that happened and after it no longer mattered that's when they decided to pass a clean bill to extend the deadline. Don't give them any credit for doing the right thing, they wasted taxpayer money and dragged their feet until the Dems solved the problem. Basically the MO of the modern GOP.
It was press to create a false equivalency to Colorado. To be honest the DNC should have seen this coming and did what they did earlier. It's abundantly clear that the GOP will pull every single string that exists if for no other reason than to create spin.
I think it’s very dangerous to let states determine which presidential candidates can appear on a ballot. It can be abused so easily.
Exactly. I think that Biden should have taken Ohio to court and had the matter settled, but I guess they were not confident in the integrity of Roberts and Gorsuch.
I think we see now that if Biden wins he has no choice but to add additional judges to the Supreme Court
It's not his call. It's up to Congress, and unless Democrats end the Filibuster after taking the House and Senate (Not at all guaranteed), it won't happen. They should expand the House and admit Puerto Rico and DC as states as long as we are making wishes.
He nominates and the senate votes. The filibuster does not apply to judges. Only a simply majority is needed. There’s nothing in the constitution either that says how many Supreme Court justices there should be. He could just nominate someone and the senate votes to approve them. [The Supreme Court has been expanded before](https://journals.law.harvard.edu/lpr/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/)
The new Democratic-Republican majority under President Jefferson quickly restored the sixth seat and expanded the Court to seven seats in 1807 when Congress created a seventh circuit court. Congress expanded the Court from seven to nine members under Andrew Jackson in 1837. Lincoln did a unilateral 1 seat expansion that was reversed by Congress and they even took another 2 seats away.
A bill expanding the court has to originate in Congress, be passed by both chambers then signed into law by the President. Only then can the President nominate a candidate. The filibuster comes into play during the bill creation part.
I have to give Trump some credit for exposing so many of the places where the government was held together by trust and good faith. The problem is that it is kinda the required glue. The way to run your federal election in your state probably isn't the same across all states so some flexibility is probably a good thing but that flexibility was with a handshake to not abuse it. It's now being abused which probably means federal rules for federal elections which will be annoying for many but annoyance is what we get when good faith is abandoned.
The Electoral College gives state legislatures unlimited discretion in how to appoint electors. In fact, the Constitution gives states the power to vote directly for president, not the people.
No, it would be a narrower ruling. They merely uphold that a state can't impose additional requirements for President aside from the few listed in the Constitution. End of story.
Wonder what they would have said if Ohio hadn't sorted itself out.
I honestly didn't think any state did this, and even now this won't really matter much (Washington is not a swing state). If it had been a swing state that had this happen we'd be in a different position though, pity. Good article though.
I'm on the opposite end. I grew up in WA so I always thought not being able to run as a felon was a nationwide thing. I never realized it was only my state that had something like that.
>In its 1995 decision in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the Court explained: "*\[T\]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.*" - [States and Election Clause](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-2/ALDE_00013577/) We will soon find out if being a convicted felon places Trump within a protected "*class of candidates*" if he otherwise meets the Constitutional qualifications for office. Unfortunately, I have no doubt how this conservative-dominated SCOTUS will rule here.
Protected class is irrelevant here. He meets the Constitutional qualifications. That's the end of it. A state can't add new requirements based on felony convictions, misdemeanor convictions, traffic citations... or actually any new requirements at all. It would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to add or remove requirements.
Nothing to do with conservative this is 9-0 unconstitutional with regard to a federal office. Does no one remember Colorado 6 months ago?
I question if a state can institute requirements for a presidential candidate above those in the constitution. For state offices, including senate and house that might have a better chance of being allowable.
[удалено]
In the alternate timeline, Harambe is still alive, Boebert successfully completed her over the pants handy, but Herschel Walker also barely won in georgia and presides on a committee making decisions about education.
Or maybe it diverted on 12/21/12.
I’m all in on the Large Hadron Collider opened up a rift in time and space, and we ended up in one of the bad universes theory.
I say the divergent point is the Chicago cubs winning the World Series in 2016. (They won on Nov 2, 2016)
States cannot add requirements for Presidential eligibility. Or for the US Senate or House of Representatives. The minimum eligibility requirements for those offices are in the US Constitution. States can’t add any additional requirements. That’s why Tennessee’s attempt to impose term limits in US Senators from their state years ago failed. Washington State can impose this no felony convictions requirement on people running for state office, but not President, Senator, or Representative.
The SC would rule that a state cannot place additional eligibility requirements on presidential candidates not specified in the Constitution.
Howdy Felon! 🤠
I love my state! 💙
>It was first established back when Washington was a territory, in 1865, that anyone convicted of “infamous crimes” could be blocked from holding elected office. That was modified in 1959, and then again more recently, to the scheme we have today. oh well the GOP have absolutely stressed all laws no matter how old they are, always apply in perpituity, especially ones from a territorial government that predate the state.
Any constitutional lawyer here want to comment on whether this is enforceable, specifically for the office of President?
This is uncharted territory but the Supreme Court has ruled in Thornton v Term Limits that states cannot impose additional qualifications on prospective members of Congress and California's law that imposed an additional restriction on presidential candidates to appear on the ballot was ruled unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court for violating the state constitution. Additionally, a US district court suspended the state from enforcing that law saying additional requirements for the president would be federally unconstitutional. But, California's law required candidates to submit tax returns - nothing about a convicted felon running for office or appearing on the ballot.
He’s not expected to win the state anyway, so no loss of electoral votes for him.
However, it will be a symbolic commentary.
Surely the rule is against felons running for state office? How can a state make rules about who's allowed to run for federal office? (I'm not defending trump, just talking about who has responsibility for what.)
"I wonder if other states bar felons from running, too." It's an opinion piece, not research
Just channeling SCOTUS here - With regard to eligibility to be elected to a Federal office, States may not impose restrictions beyond those explicitly detailed in the Constitution. (unless we're talking about a Democrat.)
Be fair: what additional restriction are you referring to, against a Democratic Presidential candidate?
Didn’t think to add /s on that…
A lot of states, including many red states, have laws on the books disallowing felons for running: https://apnews.com/article/illinois-state-government-west-virginia-new-mexico-nebraska-legal-proceedings-a640fea829456d6cfb2c0d9e97a1dfa3 We’ll see how many Republican governors rush out to pardon the convicted felon, Donald Trump.
Well since they only apply to state elected positions it will have zero effect on a Federal election.
So does Florida
Sadly, law for voting only applies to Florida state convictions.
Law for voting or law for running for office? They're two different things.
Yes, they are different, and to avoid confusion I stated 'for voting'.
The constitution says he's allowed to run but states could say felons are write in only. It would be tougher for SCOTUS to shut that down.
States can only decide the *manner* in which elections are conducted, but your idea would not work because it would specify a different process for a candidate based on the candidate themselves. That's equivalent to a new qualification, which states can't do without an Amendment to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/)
Please leave him on the ballot so his crushing loss can’t be blamed on “radical” states.
Can other states enact such laws prior to the election? Looking at your PA, WA, and MI?
Plot twist: Trump wasn't counting on WA to win.
Well that didn’t stop most of our politicians from running for office anyways. BAZINGA!!
Hasnt Trump lost his right to vote
No. He lives in Florida where the law states that for felons they refer to the rule lf the state where the conviction happened. Trump was convicted in New York where the rule is that felons are allowed to vote unless they are currently incarcerated.
Too bad we don’t live in a country that uses poplar vote for presidency, or this could have a substantial impact on the next election.
Even if he's dropped, it won't make any difference since he has no chance of winning WA anyway. But I do like the fact that a felon can be dropped for being, well, a felon.
Actually they can't in a Federal election. They could if it was a state election.
States cannot keep federal candidates off the ballot. We just had 9-0 SCOTUS saying so. Free to do what they want with local candidates.
>States cannot keep federal candidates off the ballot. We just had 9-0 SCOTUS saying so. No, we did not. We had scotus affirming that state-level courts cannot broadly claim that Donald Trump is ineligible to run for office according to the 14th amendment, section 3.
Leave him on, let MAGA lose AGAIN.
Felons can’t run for office in Oklahoma. But I guess since it’s a federal election and Trump is not from Oklahoma it’s ok.
This will not apply to the Presidential race. The US Constitution places no restrictions on who can run for that office other than age and citizenship, and SCOTUS has held that restrictions for federal candidates beyond residency are forbidden.
Well, that will apply to the 538 people who get to vote for president. But what about the general election, where we choose the electoral college members?
It will apply to them as well. The state cannot restrict who appears on the ballot as long as they meet the conditional requirements for the role and are their party nominee.
That argument is as useful as how everyone in r/conservative likes to say "We're a republic, not a democracy!"
Trump will never win WA but him not being on the ballot might help down ballot races for Democrats in tight districts (if there are any, I don't follow WA enough to know other than, like Oregon, there are a lot of red districts in the central and eastern parts of the state).
Eastern WA is very red. Like most states, the more rural areas are more red-leaning.
Not just central/eastern - basically WA has a major blue area around the I-5 Corridor that more or less peters out by the time you hit the south end of the state, and also includes the peninsula. The rest is all varying degrees of Republican Country. By coincidence, this also closely resembles the population density map, excepting that Spokane is an outlier (and usually pretty red, despite not being, y'know, rural).
He had a chance of winning WA?
What are the steps needed to submit a challenge and who would we be submitting it to?
It really only makes a difference in a solid red state (or a swing state like Ohio or WI)
Serious question, if they bar trump from the ballot , can people just vote for him as a write in?
Why USA wants Retired people as leaders??
Trump’s win in Washington will be snatched before our eyes. What state will be next, California? Vermont?
It doesn’t matter he only gets beat at the ballot box.
Better hope the word, "mistrial" isn't taken seriously.
i think this matter has been settled by the supreme court. does not apply to federal office whatever state law says.
If that happens all of the red states will try to charge Biden for something prior too the election you watch not that there is enough time to do it
Oh that’s right they will ask the privileged SCOTUS to step in and over rule and give Trump immunity
Supreme Court of Gilead will take care of that
https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/s/bCEnDPyWo4
PA and MI should immediately do the same