This deserves a longer write up than I can give it right now, but Biden would be much better off arguing that Trump isn’t a valid candidate than arguing that we should pick him over Trump. He’s avoided it because he thinks Trump is his only argument, but he needs more if we’re gonna win this.
Trump v Anderson is much more vulnerable than it appears at first blush, and if I were a blue state AG, I would consider announcing that I won’t print ballots with his name because the Supreme Court says he’s disqualified. Invite Congress to intervene if they want to compel me to change.
Hi, first-time caller first-time listener, and I've probably successfully removed more candidates from election ballots than you have and I have no idea why you think this is plausible. Trump v Anderson says that states can't enforce this provision, so how is this not settled law?
Because the Enforcement Act they cited was only for non-compliant states under the Constitution. It created a penalty for keeping someone on the ballot, not a mechanism for removing them. They’re not enforcing Section 3; they’re complying with it.
Basically, the Court didn’t actually read the provisions they cited, because it doesn’t work the way that they’re trying to make it. The hole in their theory is that the process created only happens if the state *allows* a disqualified person on the ballot.
