531
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 85 points 8 months ago

Here's where we stand (pieced together) on all of the state cases trying to get him off the ballot: https://sh.itjust.works/post/11569127

This is Castro from the NPR link: Nine states have active federal lawsuits brought by John Anthony Castro, a tax attorney and longshot Republican presidential candidate who filed challenges in more than two dozen states seeking to block Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. In October, the Supreme Court declined to hear Castro’s case. Afterward, judges in three states dismissed his lawsuits, and Castro voluntarily withdrew his cases in several others.

⚪ Alaska - lawsuit filed by Castro and pending - https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection

❌ Arizona- case dismissed https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-judge-rejects-bid-keep-trump-ballot-arizona-rcna128239

⚪ California - a call to the secretary of state, but unlikely. Also, Castro withdrew challenge - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/secretary-of-state-downplays-call-for-removal-of-trump-from-california-ballot/ar-AA1lWNv6

✔️ Colorado - Trump ruled to be not on ballot - Won by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Also, Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection

❌ Connecticut - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection

❌ Delaware - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection

❌ Florida - dismissed & US supreme court refused to take it up- https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection

❌ Idaho - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection

❌ Kansas - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection

✔️ Maine - decided by secretary of state -https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics/trump-maine-14th-amendment-ballot/index.html Previous rulings https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/us/maine-trump-ballot.html Also, Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection

❌ Massachusetts - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection

❌ Michigan - State supreme court denied to look at it: https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-colorado-b5a5d9ffa75efa63ab4780b04329e2a2 - brought by Free Speech for Free People - https://www.businessinsider.com/michigan-could-remove-trump-from-ballot-next-2023-12?op=1

⚪ Minnesota - state supreme court ruled the republican party can decide who they want on the primary ballot, but left the case open for another filing for the main ballot- brought by Free Speech for Free People, says they will bring more suits in the future- https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection

❌ Montana - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection

⚪ Nevada - Lawsuit filed by castro

⚪ New Mexico - pending Castro filed suit https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker

⚪ New Jersey - pending Bellochio filed suit https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker

⚪ New York - pending 2, Castro & Dewald filed suit https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker

❌ North Carolina - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection

❌ Oklahoma - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection

⚪ Oregon - going to the state supreme court - Free Speech for Free People brought suit - https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection

❌ Pennsylvania - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection

❌ Rhode Island - dismissed - https://www.tampafp.com/federal-judge-in-rhode-island-tosses-trump-2024/

⚪ Texas - pending Castro filed suit https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker

❌ Utah - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection

⚪ Vermont - pending Castro filed suit https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker

⚪ Virginia - filed by Roy L. Perry-Bey of Hampton https://www.wric.com/news/virginia-news/motion-filed-to-remove-trump-from-virginia-ballots/

⚪ West Virginia - pending Castro filed suit https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker

⚪ Wisconsin - pending Castro filed suit https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker

⚪ Wyoming - pending Newcomb v Gray (?) https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker

[-] SlicingBot@lemmy.ml 31 points 8 months ago

This is such a thorough post. I really appreciate that you took the time to compile this.

[-] BulbasaurBabu@lemmings.world 4 points 8 months ago

Except they left out Hawai‘i

[-] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

they're still angry about Obama.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 8 months ago

Going to get down voted for this, but I honestly think Minnesota has the right of it. The GOP is a private entity and can run whoever they want in their primaries.

14A has nothing to say about how parties select their candidates, and if they want to select someone who isn't qualified that's their problem.

Also, if Trump fails to win the GOP nomination, someone really needs to seed the idea that they should all do write in votes for Trump instead of whoever the GOP would nominate instead. Show the GOP they shouldn't back down and show the Dems they can't stop the Trump Train. Also, you know, splitting the GOP vote to make an easier Dem win, but sshhh about that last part.

[-] matjoeman@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Primaries use public voting infrastructure, at least in my state, so I can see the argument that courts can decide who is a legal primary candidate.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

The risk is what the GOP is threatening to do in Colorado. If Trump isn't allowed on the public voting infrastructure, they'll just caucus instead.

In which case, it's likely that independents won't be allowed to participate.

So for primaries, it's likely to have the opposite effect, more likely for a Trump candidacy, by stirring up the base and locking out potential moderate voters.

For general election, Maine and Colorado don't practically matter, they were never going to go to trump anyway. So for these two states, it's ammunition for a persecution complex without good result. For it to be a good strategic win, it would have to be some states that Trump actually has a chance of winning.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 8 months ago

The risk is what the GOP is threatening to do in Colorado. If Trump isn't allowed on the public voting infrastructure, they'll just caucus instead.

They have every right to. Again, because a primary isn't an election for office, it's a private entity (in this case the GOP) being allowed to borrow public infrastructure to help them decide who they want to back for the actual election.

Same reason super delegates for the Dems weren't illegal, even if they were in bad faith.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

It's perfectly in their rights, but not what an effort seeking to prevent a Trump candidacy should want.

[-] WarmApplePieShrek@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago

If the state ruled Trump can't be on the primary ballot because he's ineligible to be president, then he can't be on the main ballot because he's ineligible to be president. That means no Republican will be on the ballot, and that's really bad for the Republicans.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Trump missing from the ballot in Colorado and Maine would not make a difference, they don't vote Republican in the general election anyway.

You'd need this to happen in a vaguely competitive state. Judging from the progress of various attempts, that doesn't seem likely, unless the supreme Court declared it nationally, but I don't see that happening even if they let Colorado and Maine stand.

So you have got a bunch of Trump die hards inspired to "fight like hell" in the face of what they describe as an injustice, all to block him in a state he wasn't going to win anyway.

Now if you pulled this off in some place like Georgia, Florida, Texas, then sure, that would be quite the blow and may persuade the GOP voters to really around some other candidate that would be more tolerable. But Colorado and Maine aren't going to really help general election results.

this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
531 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3065 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS