'Trump Is Disqualified': Activists Aim to Keep Insurrectionist Off Ballot in Key States

[NJCher]

Last edited Sat Jul 8, 2023, 04:45 PM - Edit history (2)

Most of us think he is dis- AND unqualified; meet the people trying to make it a legal reality:

by Jessica Corbett
July 7, 2023
Common Dreams


snip

Free Speech for People and Mi Familia Vota are among various groups and legal scholars that cite Section 3 of the 14th Amendment—which bars from office anyone who has taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion"—to assert that Trump and some congressional Republicans can't serve in government because of the Capitol attack.

The two groups are now organizing events outside secretary of state offices in California, Colorado, Georgia, and Oregon "to make sure that they are taking a stand by disqualifying Trump in those spaces, which is something that the secretary of state can do," Mi Familia Vota executive director Héctor Sánchez toldThe Hill.

The activists also focused on Nevada, and sent a related letter to Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar last month. The upcoming events are set to coincide with the 155th anniversary of the amendment's ratification on Sunday. Plans for the demonstrations come as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), another group that has long charged that Trump can't run again because of the 14th Amendment, highlighted seven past disqualifications in a Friday report.

The individuals identified by CREW include Couy Griffin, a New Mexico man ordered by a court to step down as Otero County commissioner last year after participating in the 2021 insurrection; Victor L. Berger, a Wisconsin congressman convicted under the Espionage Act whom Congress refused to seat in 1919; A.F. Gregory, a local postmaster removed by the postmaster general in 1871; and J.D. Watkins, who was disqualified from serving as a state judge in Louisiana in 1869.

snip

At the link is a 2-paragraph inset elaborating on CREW's take on the legal position to which they refer. In addition, tweets by Noah Bookbinder:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-14th-amendment-january-6Common Dreams
]

[republianmushroom]

1. I like it

[Buns_of_Fire]

2. I wish them luck. From the article:

As CREW noted:

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal "rebellion or insurrection" statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3's text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.

The precedent likewise confirms that one can "engage" in insurrection without personally committing violent acts. Neither Kenneth Worthy nor Couy Griffin [was] accused of engaging in violence, yet both were ruled to be disqualified because they knowingly and voluntarily aided violent insurrections. (bold mine)

[brooklynite]

3. More meaningless symbolism

Until and unless Trump is convicted of insurrection, the 14th Amendment doesn't apply. "Knowing" he's guilty doesn't count.

[NJCher]

8. LOL

you're so predictable. When I posted this I said to myself--I'll give this about 30" before Brooklynite posts that it's neither here nor there, meaningless, or any other dismal, cynical, or negative take on it.

Have you notified the legal scholars and activists at Mi Familia and Free Speech for People of their legal misunderstanding? They could be staying home, watching TV, instead of wasting their time trying to advocate on behalf of democracy.

Oh, and don't forget to notify the secretaries of state that they were wasting their time meeting with the activists:

snip

"we had a number of meetings with secretaries of state and we have had this discussion," said Sánchez. "So it's a real possibility."

snip

We all know secretaries of states are naive and have time to waste on useless meetings. You should let them know so they don't bother next time someone asks. Hey, why not just tell them: it's all useless. Don't even bother or try in any way.

Maybe those secretaries of state didn't want to hurt the activists' feelings! That's why they met with them! It certainly couldn't have been for any reason of substance.

I have to go to work so any response you make will go unseen by me for quite some time. Have a nice day, and take your cloud with you:

[erronis]

10. I agree with you about its pattern of negativity.

Reminds me of a 'bmaz' who comments at Empty Wheel. Maybe related?

[brooklynite]

13. As someone who deals with politics in the real world, I think of it as "reality", not "negativity"

Whether it makes someone here feel unhappy is irrelevant, since that unhappiness has no bearing on how the Courts will rule on this theory.

[kooth]

11. Right-on!

Well-said, NJCher!

The groups also need to go after the congress people who were involved. Let's kick them off of their ballots!

[brooklynite]

12. When any State decides to exclude Trump from the ballot (Primary or General) let me know...

...and I'll be duly chastened. In the meantime, "legal scholars and activists" can imagine what they want.

[brooklynite]

14. Where's your critiquing of #5?

[former9thward]

19. Who are the "legal scholars" making the argument?

They are unidentified in the article. Of the persons mentioned two were convicted of crimes and the other two were not elected officials. What did the "Secretaries of States" say? Nothing mentioned in the article.

[wryter2000]

22. That could happen before the November 2024 election

I would think seditious conspiracy would count as insurrection or rebellion, esp. if it resulted in violence at the capitol on the day the electoral college votes were to be tallied.

We don't know that Jack Smith will charge him with that or if a jury will convict, but it is a possibility If that's the case, it would take time to get the states to disqualify him, and it might be helpful to have gotten the ball rolling ahead of time.

[brooklynite]

24. You CAN'T "get the ball rolling"

Courts will not issue anticipatory rulings. Either Trump is convicted or he isn't. I'm still not convinced that he'll be charged with Jan 6 at all (lack of evidence of intent and no linkage to the organizers of the violence). But whether or not he is, nobody is going to kick Trump off the ballot in case he's eventually convicted, and the ballots will be locked 45 days or so before the election to get military ballots out.

[wryter2000]

30. Getting the ball rolling

Referred to getting him off ballots, not getting his criminal case going

[brooklynite]

31. And you can't get him off the ballot absent a conviction.

[wryter2000]

33. Then this plan won't work

It’s up to them if they want to make a point with their protest

[brooklynite]

34. As I said before, meaningless symbolism.

[Torchlight]

35. Like laughter

[wryter2000]

36. That does not mean it's meaningless

The civil rights marches didn't change anything directly. If they get a message out that one of the people on the ballot is likely guilty of insurrection, they've accomplished something.

[brooklynite]

37. How is a prosecution of Trump going to "send a message" that hasn't already been sent?

People who think he's guilty clearly don't need a prosecution to prove it. And people who think it's persecution by the deep state won't have their minds changed. Not going to have the slightest impact on the election.

[33taw]

4. This only matters in red and purple states.

[forthemiddle]

9. If it pertains to the primary election

It makes a difference everywhere. To keep him off the primary State ballot keeps him from gaining delegates.
That would keep him from being the Republican candidate.

[Mr.Bill]

15. I think it can matter in blue states, too.

If Trump was not on the ballot in California, I bet we could flip some congressional seats. Likewise in other blue states. Wouldn't it be great if we could flip 17 Senate seats?

That's when we start impeaching judges and removing them.

[Silent Type]

5. Waste of time without a conviction. Take money and effort and help Democrats get elected at polls.

[ShazzieB]

20. Maybe you should go tell the people working on this that they're wasting their time.

Since you evidently think you know so much more than they do.Seems to me telling us here at DU is kind of pointless.

Personally, I have a lot of respect for people who are at least trying to find a way to fight. Lighting even one tiny candle beats sitting and cursing the darkness.

[brooklynite]

25. Out of curiosity, why do you object to someone disagreeing with you?

[ShazzieB]

29. I really am not sure what you mean.

I like to express my opinions, and sometimes I have an opinion that disagrees with another one being expressed. Expressing disagreement doesn't necessarily mean believing that no one should be allowed to hold a differing opinion.

[Silent Type]

26. Maybe you should look up the term "democracy."

[Hortensis]

27. If they chose to keep you off the ballots they couldn't either.

Or me. Or anyone else here or in Florida whose behaviors don't provide a legal basis for disqualification. That's actually a good thing.

And it's what the mention of actually finding someone guilty of something that does before trying to keep him off the ballots is about.

This is the real world, after all. We are still a nation of laws and a party of laws.

[SoFlaBro]

6. I don't like it. We need that ugly Orange Bastard on the fucking ballot.

He is a juicy target for bad news and boosts our chances in 2024 downballot.

[soldierant]

16. Sure he does ...

but not everywhere. I'm liking the idea of his not being on the ballot in a few key swing states.

[ShazzieB]

21. Me, too, soldierant.

I like it quite a lot, in fact.

[whopis01]

17. I agree completely

If Trump were to drop out of the race today then the GOP support will coalesce around DeSantis. And despite all of DeSantis’ negatives, he didn’t lead an insurrection and try to overthrow an election. That makes him a far more viable candidate than Trump.

I don’t believe DeSantis can win the primary if Trump is in it and I don’t believe Trump can win the general election if he is in it.

With that said, I think the biggest danger in the general election is going to be third party candidates. The GOP knows this and are likely to push for third party candidates that will draw votes away from Biden.

[wryter2000]

23. Plus, we need him boosting other unelectable candidates

Remember Dr. Oz and Herschel Walker. More of those would be nice.

[BeckyDem]

7. +1

And thank you for posting.

[onenote]

18. I'd prefer it if activists devoted their energies to efforts that can help us win elections

This isn't going anywhere. The time and resources expended on it would be better spent on voter registration, GOTV and other efforts to educate and energize voters.

[Hortensis]

28. Agree. Of course, support and money to these groups could benefit THEM.

Not suggesting they wouldn't find a worthy activism to invest it in, but I'd like to hear what that would be before supporting them.

These days "grassroots" big-money little donations are sought by many, many organizations. And as you suggest, many of them are serious operations committed to electing Democrats and defeating Republicans.

[Kid Berwyn]

32. Same for his co-conspirators in Congress.

Traitors have no business in elected office.