Fine by me I guess. But that would make common sense. As such, it flies in the face of everything we've seen regarding the SCOTUS ability/willingness to hear any cases involving any federal elections.
States have the right to run their elections however they choose to do, provided that it doesn't cause problems with the federal races on their ballots, or do anything that violates federal law with regards to the federal races. They can do whatever the hell they want with STATE and LOCAL races, but if they do anything in the administration of their elections that is illegal for FEDERAL elections or causes other problems with the federal races, then the federal courts have every right to intercede. I think we can all agree that the race for POTUS is one of the more important federal races.
States can run their elections any way they want with regards to how their ballots are designed, what counting methods they use, how much early voting they want to have, whether they want vote by mail, whether they want voter ID, etc. Federal courts and SCOTUS have never been willing to interfere in legal disputes over things like this. But banning the candidate who is demolishing every other candidate from both parties in the polls from being on their state ballot in a nakedly partisan, extremely obvious move? That's something that's never been done before, and it's about as blatant a form of election interference as you could ever have. It doesn't just affect Minnesota, it affects all 49 other states as well. I'm willing to bet a conservative SCOTUS isn't going to sit back and let that kind of shit stand.
That is so true. The gist of federal law, when it comes to the Presidential election, is that each district will elect three people to represent their chosen Presidential nominee in the electoral college. The election is certified according to state law and then the electoral college votes in the state capital. Then the results of that election are sent to Washington to be certified at the federal level. For US House and Senate races, documents need to be sent to the archivist in order to that member to officially hold the seat.
IIRC if a candidate is deemed ineligible to be on the ballot over legal matters, then he is ineligible for write-in votes also. Writing his name in will have zero effect; the vote will not count.
IANAL - if any legal eagles can weigh in and contradict, I'm all eyes :)
If it's liberal states that wouldn't have voted for Trump anyway, then does it matter who they put on their ballots?
I know that the primary in NC, because it's a later one, gives us little choice for Republicans. All but a couple of front runners have dropped out by the time we get to vote. So we never get the chance to vote for anyone who was near the bottom. That's why I registered Democrat, just so I could screw with their primaries. I voted for Jesse Jackson one year. That was fun.
It does matter because all the cases against Donald Trump are political witch hunts. Besides, the states don't have the power to remove people from the ballot unless that person is a drop out. Also, Minnesota likely went for Trump in 2020, but the cheating in the Twin Cities was just too great.
The states do have the power to conduct elections as they see fit, but it has to be done in the boundaries of state and federal law. The problem with 2020 and 2022 is that states broke state and federal law in order to ensure Brandon's "victory."
I think it is a matter of opinion as votes were coming in throughout the night. I think we can both agree that the scales were tipped in Biden's favor from both regions of Minnesota.
“If it's liberal states that wouldn't have voted for Trump anyway” - this is not true, all states are rigged. The very fact that they want to keep him off the ballot proves they are very scared!
Rigging and taking names off of ballots are two different things. I didn't say that other states weren't being rigged or attempting to be rigged. I just said that liberal write-off states took Trump off the ballot, it wouldn't affect the election results. We go by electoral votes, not by the total popular vote.
The SC will overturn that shit.
It will overturn itself?
The SC of MN is the one with jurisdiction over election matters within the state.
It's a federal election. SCOTUS has the final say.
Fine by me I guess. But that would make common sense. As such, it flies in the face of everything we've seen regarding the SCOTUS ability/willingness to hear any cases involving any federal elections.
They're conducted at the state level.
Trump earlier this year: "..we have a partially corrupt legal system..."
Trump very soon probably: "Our legal system is totally corrupt, broken, and must be overhauled or replaced."
SCOTUS has just entered the chat
In what way? Why would one assume they would ever hear a case about election matters in a given state?
Because it's a federal election, and therefore SCOTUS has the final say.
Sauce?
IIRC federal elections are held at the state level and governed by state law, written by state legislatures and adjudicated by state court. No?
States have the right to run their elections however they choose to do, provided that it doesn't cause problems with the federal races on their ballots, or do anything that violates federal law with regards to the federal races. They can do whatever the hell they want with STATE and LOCAL races, but if they do anything in the administration of their elections that is illegal for FEDERAL elections or causes other problems with the federal races, then the federal courts have every right to intercede. I think we can all agree that the race for POTUS is one of the more important federal races.
States can run their elections any way they want with regards to how their ballots are designed, what counting methods they use, how much early voting they want to have, whether they want vote by mail, whether they want voter ID, etc. Federal courts and SCOTUS have never been willing to interfere in legal disputes over things like this. But banning the candidate who is demolishing every other candidate from both parties in the polls from being on their state ballot in a nakedly partisan, extremely obvious move? That's something that's never been done before, and it's about as blatant a form of election interference as you could ever have. It doesn't just affect Minnesota, it affects all 49 other states as well. I'm willing to bet a conservative SCOTUS isn't going to sit back and let that kind of shit stand.
That is so true. The gist of federal law, when it comes to the Presidential election, is that each district will elect three people to represent their chosen Presidential nominee in the electoral college. The election is certified according to state law and then the electoral college votes in the state capital. Then the results of that election are sent to Washington to be certified at the federal level. For US House and Senate races, documents need to be sent to the archivist in order to that member to officially hold the seat.
45th President Donald John Trump. Write in that name, spread it nation wide, dont check the box. Write his full name and his presidential title
IIRC if a candidate is deemed ineligible to be on the ballot over legal matters, then he is ineligible for write-in votes also. Writing his name in will have zero effect; the vote will not count.
IANAL - if any legal eagles can weigh in and contradict, I'm all eyes :)
Read this post for a good counter argument:
https://greatawakening.win/p/17rT6kuz4i/minnesota-supreme-court-chief-ju/
If it's liberal states that wouldn't have voted for Trump anyway, then does it matter who they put on their ballots?
I know that the primary in NC, because it's a later one, gives us little choice for Republicans. All but a couple of front runners have dropped out by the time we get to vote. So we never get the chance to vote for anyone who was near the bottom. That's why I registered Democrat, just so I could screw with their primaries. I voted for Jesse Jackson one year. That was fun.
It does matter because all the cases against Donald Trump are political witch hunts. Besides, the states don't have the power to remove people from the ballot unless that person is a drop out. Also, Minnesota likely went for Trump in 2020, but the cheating in the Twin Cities was just too great.
I thought the states had total control of elections in their state, including who would appear on the ballots.
Perhaps Trump might have won Minnesota, but we don't know for sure.
The states do have the power to conduct elections as they see fit, but it has to be done in the boundaries of state and federal law. The problem with 2020 and 2022 is that states broke state and federal law in order to ensure Brandon's "victory."
Twin cities wasnt what won it for the child aniffer, it was the cheating in the iron range.
The iron range does include the Duluth area, but we can't excuse the Twin Cities because that it the most populated area of Minnesota.
Though that is correct. In 2020 while the counties were still being tallied, TC did not tip the scales, iron range did.
I think it is a matter of opinion as votes were coming in throughout the night. I think we can both agree that the scales were tipped in Biden's favor from both regions of Minnesota.
Trump [in actuality, not in clown world] did win MN in 2020; reasonable to assume his margin of victory would be even greater this time around
“If it's liberal states that wouldn't have voted for Trump anyway” - this is not true, all states are rigged. The very fact that they want to keep him off the ballot proves they are very scared!
Rigging and taking names off of ballots are two different things. I didn't say that other states weren't being rigged or attempting to be rigged. I just said that liberal write-off states took Trump off the ballot, it wouldn't affect the election results. We go by electoral votes, not by the total popular vote.
Move quickly to the Supreme Court.
Liberals rule 5 - 2 in this court. Trump can't win there.
I beg to differ....
Justice can't win there.
This runs in conflict to what was reported yesterday: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/minnesota-supreme-court-chief-justice-dresses-down-leftist/
The Star Tribune's wet dream is for someone to put a bullet through Donald Trump's skull.