877
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The trial over an effort in Minnesota to keep former President Donald Trump off of the 2024 ballot began Thursday at the state Supreme Court as a similar case continued in Colorado.

The lawsuits in both states allege Trump should be barred from the 2024 ballot for his conduct leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. They argue Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says no one who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after swearing an oath to support and defend the Constitution can hold office.

A group of Minnesota voters, represented by the election reform group Free Speech for People, sued in September to remove Trump from the state ballot under the 14th Amendment provision. The petitioners include former Minnesota Secretary of State Joan Growe and former state Supreme Court Justice Paul H. Anderson.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 76 points 1 year ago

God I love this state. I couldn't imagine living anywhere else

[-] AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 year ago

Minnesota is pretty great. I moved up here from Florida while Rick "Defraud Medicare" Scott was governor, people kinda thought I was nuts but it's become pretty clear that was an excellent decision.

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] KneeTitts@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

The very fact that we cant throw these particular bank robbers in prison because they stole so much money that they are now too big to jail, is an indictment of our entire system

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I wish MN could have a case for Trump beyond this one. The MN Court would have a field day

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 52 points 1 year ago

I would prefer for 40% of the country to not be imbeciles that would cast a ballot for him in the first place . . .

[-] Jonnynny@lemm.ee 48 points 1 year ago

I think it's important to point out that this disqualification under section 3 of the 14th amendment does not require conviction of a crime. Anyone who has previously taken oath as a member of the US government can be disqualified from holding office if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." There is enough of an argument that just providing comfort to insurrectionists is enough to disqualify.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 42 points 1 year ago

This will go to the corrupt supreme court, which will determine that this part of the constitution doesn't count

[-] Tbird83ii@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Technically Minnesota doesn't have to allow anyone on its ballots, if they have legal justification to prevent them. And there is precedent for this. Alabama kept Harry Truman off their ballot in 1948, even though he was the incumbent president.

If Trump is convicted in Georgia he would run afoul of Minnesota fair campaign section of the state constitution (211B), or hell, I think he has already been fined for infractions that qualify as legal justification to remove him from the ballot in MN based on both campaign finance laws and the fair campaigns section of the MN state constitution.

As the GOP has been doing for the last decade, they have been eroding the federal ability to monitor and manage states' elections (reducing the voting rights act, etc) current precedent is that the state has the right to handle matters with regard to elections with near impunity.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

While the court has its issues, it doesn't seem to care to side particularly with Trump. They've had a few opportunities and have so far mostly sided against or at least failed to side with Trump in matters that either made it that far or tried to make it that far.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] PreviouslyAmused@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Or, even better, that this part of the constitution doesn’t count for this specific person, in this specific case, at this specific time.

But that it counts for anyone else, at any other time.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

State Rights!

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

OHHHHH, he never said support!!!! Get lawyered bitches!!! Oh wait, the courts don’t give a shit about technicalities? Well fuck me!

[-] irotsoma@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Except the current Supreme Court who has repeatedly thrown precedent out the window to read the Constitution as intending to be both literal to modern language and assuming it was not intended to be interpreted with modern technology and crises in mind.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Look if the founding fathers wanted to restrict my right to bear thermonuclear arms they shoulda added an addendum to the second amendment. Those "fore"fathers didn't have much foresight. Now let me buy plutonium.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

Save y'all sometime: it finds its way to the Supreme Court and Thomas, the rapist, and Roberts shit all over it claiming that they lack standing.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Let's not forget about Kavanagh, the other rapist.

[-] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Maybe he can ask Gangbang Greg to write the majority opinion.

[-] aluminium@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I see real chance that this is Civil War 2 in the making.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago

let them shit or get off the pot, then. MAGA has been trying to extort us with the threat of civil war for years now.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Doubtful too fat, lazy and old and we whooped the racists in the last one anyway. We’ll fucking do it again.

[-] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

And even before that, none of these wingnuts can even agree with each other within their "own" side. Even the January 6th insurrection attempt was complete disorganized chaos, and that clusterfuck was the closest they ever got to being organized. They'll spend more time bickering and turning on each other for dumbshit reasons ("Look, this guy is wearing elevator shoes!") than accomplishing any actual objectives. I'm sure lone fuckheads can cause localized destruction and chaos here and there if they felt like it, but that'll never amount to an overthrow of anything.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] echodot@feddit.uk 10 points 1 year ago

Who will win in a fight 400 annoying angry rednecks or one tank?

Yeah that's a tough one

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Pacmanlives@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

God I want this so so bad! But I don’t think it will happen since he has yet to be convicted of the crime. Hate to say it but innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. Hope that happens sooner rather then later

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Conviction might be helpful, but is not actually necessary for this to work.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] qooqie@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Okay say they’re successful I have a question about write ins, will they count that towards his total? Or is he completely removed from running and being voted for in that state?

[-] NeverNudeNo13@lemmings.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In general this would depend on the state... In Minnesota the canvass following the general ballot is used to determine who the states electors are going to be. These individuals represent their districts and are then legally obligated to only vote for candidates that meet eligibility and are on the ballot. So there would need to be a certain threshold of write ins met before he could actually make it to the electors ballots and he would have to submit a proper write in registration form ahead of time.. Because those electors are casting votes in representation for their districts they would not be authorized to write in a candidate of their own choosing as they would basically be going completely against their electoral districts clearly defined intentions.

So it's possible he could even win a fair share of the popular vote but be unable to be even selected as a candidate by the electors as they are legally unable to vote for him unless he is a properly displayed candidate on their ballots.

Super unlikely, but it would depend on how the state's Supreme Court would decide to uphold its write in registration process following the decision... And also it would probably be petitioned to higher courts who would likely overturn it since it's extremely dangerous precedent.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Doesn't the language say they aren't eligible to hold office? Even if they were written in they couldn't technically accept, legally and election officialls would be banned from counting the person's votes.

With maga corrupt officials in some states tho who knows.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

How many states' ballot papers can he afford to lose before he is no longer a viable candidate for the GOP?

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
877 points (98.7% liked)

News

23655 readers
3291 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS