#Politics From #CNN: #Colorado GOP appeals state Supreme Court #Trump ruling to #SCOTUS.
They're using the appeal I predicted based on my 1992 #Florida Democratic primary experience:
"... [T]he Colorado Supreme Court engaged in an unprecedented disregard for the First Amendment right of political parties to select the candidates of their choice ..."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/27/politics/colorado-gop-appeal-trump-supreme-court/index.html
@WordsmithFL the first amendment does not override the 14th amendment. they are not free to choose an ineligible candidate
also, the suit to ban Trump was originally brought by the CO GOP, so this looks like they want their cake & to eat it too
@redenigma There's a difference between the primary and the general. I worked on a 1992 Florida campaign for a candidate the Dems blocked from the ballot. The judge ruled that a party can choose who they want to be on the primary ballot.
The implication was that the party is free to choose someone who could be banned in the general.
That is what the CO GOP is arguing. It's what the MI Supreme Court said.
And that is exactly what we thought. Did CO specifically say Primary or did it just say Ballot? Not sure of exact wording - it makes a difference.
Here in WV, party picks their endorsed candidate others can challenge them. Or a party can decide not to have a Primary but use the State Convention method to pick their candidate as our Mountain Party does.
CO has unique rules different from other states. One is that a candidate much provide proof of eligibility to be on a primary ballot. MI in its ruling noted that its state does not have that rule.
Another is that CO is a "semi-closed" primary state. Republicans and independents can vote in the GOP primary, but no voters who are registered members of other parties. The CO lawsuit was filed by four private citizens, four Republicans and one independent. No party involved.
@WordsmithFL @Gladari @redenigma
Should we spell Xombie Twitter with an X rather than a Z? Or does that show too much deference to the Muskrat?
@HazmiMenexenus Well, I'm not using the X because it's dumb, but you're free to do as you wish. 😉
@WordsmithFL
So I'm free to be dumb. Got it. 👍
I was just discussing with my Partner if the decisions in CO & ME specifically only applies to the Primary ballots, or to any state ballot for office?
@Gladari Both rulings applied only to the state's primary ballot.
The primary simply selects delegates to go to a party's convention. If the party nominates him, then the state would have to rule again on the general election ballot.
Thanks, Stephen. Here all party candidates for a specific office are on the Primary ballots. The winner is automatically then on the General Election Ballot.
Different strokes for different states! No idea how Maine does it.
@Gladari @WordsmithFL Maine has ranked choice voting
@redenigma Thank you for the clarification ... As I've been posting, each state has its own rules, so this gets very murky.
I'll be curious to see if the SCOTUS majority side with states rights, or side with a party's freedom of association, or find a compromise. It will be hard to create one rule that covers all fifty states.
@WordsmithFL @Gladari well, since there IS the matter of the 14th amendment, it's even murkier. are they going to ignore the constitution?
@redenigma I think the answer to that will be freedom of association. If a party wishes to choose as its nominee someone they know is ineligible, then so be it, he won't be on the ballot come November.
For example, if a majority of primary voters wrote in Mickey Mouse, Mickey obviously can't be the nominee so ... 🤔
Most states have a law covering an ineligible candidate winning an election, so I assume that would be the fallback position.
They are spending this time looking how they can "spin" it! Look how they misinterpreted the 2nd Amend! IMO
@Gladari I'll also note that the CO GOP has already said on Zombie Twitter that they will switch to a caucus if Trump's ban is upheld.
@redenigma