#ballot disqualification

[cyphorical]

Trump's Legal Cases

Recent: • Federal Civil Defamation Suit (II) Liable $83,300,000 • NY Civil Trump v. NYTimes/Reporters/Mary Trump Trump to pay $392,638.69 • Federal Civil Defamation Suit (I) Liable $5 million Upcoming: 1. NY AG Civil Fraud Suit Liable - February Sentencing? 2. Federal January 6th Case March 4th, 2024? 3. Manhattan DA Hush Money Case March 25th, 2024? 4. Federal Classified Documents Case May 20th, 2024? 5. Georgia RICO Case August 5th, 2024, Proposed 6. DC Civil Wrongful Death Suit - Pending? 7. NY Civil Copyright Infringement [Eddy] Grant v. Trump - Pending? 8. Federal Civil ACN Video Phone Suit Dismissed - Venue shifted to state courts

Ballot disqualification issue: • Colorado - Disqualified - SCOTUS appeal pending? • Maine - Disqualified - Challenges pending? • Minnesota - Allowed on primary • Michigan - Allowed on primary • Illinois - Allowed on primary

[deadpresidents]

Maine only has four electoral votes, but unlike Colorado, Trump did win a portion of Maine's electoral votes in both 2016 and 2020. Because of how close most Presidential elections have been this century, every single vote in the Electoral College is extremely important. And as more states move to disqualify Trump from the ballot, the Supreme Court should act more quickly to consider whether or not these disqualifications should stand. The Court needs to start working on clarifying a lot of Constitutional questions that have never been tested in the United States because the election season is underway and we're going to end up in a very dangerous place if a twice-impeached insurrectionist with a rabid personality cult built around him, who is charged with 91 felony counts under indictments in four separate criminal trials and is openly speaking about being a dictator and getting revenge on his enemies, quickly wraps up a major political party's Presidential nomination.

[carolyn-magazine]

This is a letter I wrote to my Secretary of State in regard to the disqualification of Donald J. Trump, and any others, from holding public office, per the United States Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 3.

[Disclaimer: this letter has been altered by me to remove the name of this state's Secretary of State in case anyone else would like to copy and send it to their Secretary of State or Lieutenant Governor. [Note: In Some States the Lieutenant Governor also serves as the Secretary of State and/or Chief Election Officer]

Dear Secretary of State [insert name] ,

In addition to serving as Secretary of State of [insert state], you also serve as Chief Election Officer. As a proud resident of [insert state], I am aware that you stand by the wisdom of The United States Constitution, as we all should. I implore you to please read, and take into serious consideration, the below information.

I am writing to your offices urging a formal review of whether Donald J. Trump, and any others, are barred from the ballot in this state by way of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That Amendment disqualifies from the ballot any person who “shall have engaged” in an “insurrection.”

For such a disqualification, there is no requirement that Trump or any person be first convicted of any crime - as the Congressional Research Service notes.

Additionally, last year after a trial in New Mexico, a judge ruled that Jan. 6 was an “insurrection” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and that Otero County Commissioner Cuoy Griffin was removed from office and disqualified from the ballot for “engaging” in that attack. Mr. Griffin is also prohibited from ever holding an elected position in the state of New Mexico.

Donald Trump’s actions - as detailed in the final report of the “Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack” - far exceed the actions of Griffin in terms of “engaging” in the Jan. 6 insurrection. While that New Mexico ruling is not binding in this or any other state, it is persuasive in its reasoning, and I urge your offices to read it.

Recently, conservative legal scholars (former Federal Judge on the Court of Appeals 4th circuit, J. Michael Luttig, and Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School, who taught Constitutional Law at Harvard for nearly five decades, Laurence Tribe) have recently penned articles reaching the conclusion that given Trump’s conduct, the US Constitution does in fact bar Trump from the ballot.

Article VI of The United States Constitution reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Amendment 14, Section 3 of The United States Constitution reads, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

As Americans, we should always take the Constitution seriously, and most people do, including Donald Trump, as we've witnessed him repeatedly standing by the 1st and 5th amendments.

We can't pick and choose which amendments are legally binding because each one is considered part of the supreme law of the land, as stated above in Article VI of The Constitution.

The time is now to review if Trump, or anyone for that matter, has done just that, and is barred from the ballot - well before the 2024 election.

George Santayana once famously wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." 

We must learn from History and there is a reason why Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was written into The Constitution - as a way to prevent our democracy from being destroyed.

Thank you for considering this issue that is vitally important to protecting our Republic.

Sincerely,

[insert your name here]

References

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:d5f3903a-9ef1-413d-8b62-d42d1e8f44a5

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2022/09/06/nm-judge-orders-couy-griffin-to-be-removed-from-otero-county-commission-bars-him-from-holding-any-office-in-the-future/

https://www.c-span.org/video/?507774-1/president-trump-video-statement-capitol-protesters

https://iep.utm.edu/santayan/

https://youtu.be/5Aaqz4qiQYM?si=ls1xrwNcKcFZrVMd

[ivygorgon]

📈 Exclusion of Donald Trump from future ballots under Fourteenth Amendment hit 2,000 signers! https://resist.bot/petitions/PGOQGM

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically Section 3, disqualifies individuals who engage in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution from holding office. This provision is applicable to former President Donald Trump due to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and the subsequent attack on the U.S. Capitol. This disqualification operates independently of criminal proceedings, impeachment, or legislation. Legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen support this interpretation. It's crucial to uphold the Constitution faithfully, even if it may lead to social unrest. Therefore, it is requested that the name of Donald Trump be excluded from future ballots in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment. This action will demonstrate a commitment to protecting our constitutional democracy.

▶ Created on August 25 by @resistbot Action Fund · 2,029 signers in the past 7 days

Text Sign PGOQGM to WhatsApp / Messenger / APPLE MESSAGES / SMS

[bekandrew]

lol and lmfao

[drchucktingle]

dq

finally had time to get informed about @xiranjayzhao, rebecca f kuang and @neil-gaiman being removed from hugo ballot without explanation and hugos claiming they were 'disqualified' but not being able to say why. there is something about this that i think only i can say so here goes:

i philosophically believe my story SPACE RAPTOR BUTT INVASION deserved its nomination because of my views on art, but i also know my views are rare and extreme. my circumstances were very unique and strange, so consider this: EVEN SPACE RAPTOR BUTT INVASION WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED

look up the circumstances of my nomination if you are unfamiliar. apparently that was NOT enough for a disqualification but some mysterious thing about the work of @xiranjayzhao, rebecca f kuang and @neil-gaiman is?

again i am not saying i should have been disqualified and i could write a dang 50 page thesis on art theory and why i believe in my nomination, but compared against the current situation it says a LOT. i am very disturbed and saddened by the treatment of these authors.

[neil-gaiman]

I don't think you should get to go on here and post about how the evil Chinese government influenced book award nominations for ideological reasons and then later reblog something that reveals that this was all a distraction to keep all the Chinese language ballots that got thrown out for racism reasons a secret and everyone is just supposed to give you a pass?

That's nice.

As one of the people directly affected (episode 6 of my show Sandman would have got enough votes to be on the Hugo ballot, but was mysteriously removed as "ineligible"), I've been posting and reblogging the information that we've had as we've been getting it.

One of the best things about getting to blog in real time is that as more information comes in you get to reblog that.

Originally, what we knew from what people were saying or implying was that there was censorship going on.

We knew that a book, two people and a TV show had been removed from the nominee list before the final ballot. But nobody was talking on the record.

Then one of the Hugo Committee broke ranks, leaked emails and spoke to Jason Sanford and Chris M. Barkley, who released this report:

The most shocking part of the story, from the leaks, is that Dave McCarty, the adminstrator, appears to have thrown out hundreds, perhaps thousands of Chinese votes, claiming that they were a "slate". (Something that he doesn't have the authority to do, any more than he had the authority to mark things inexplicably ineligible.)

I hope this helps.

[jayblanc]

Further news on the Chengdu 2023 Worldcon Scandal

The more we know, the less honest the Hugo results look. And there's some questions about how the Chendgu 2023 Worldcon was organised.

First of all, the Numbers Don't Add Up. Literally.

Second, it appears that the Chendgu 2023 Worldcon might have been coopted by Chinese Publishing companies. And that their corporate promotion lists might have been used as voting slates. This comes after a game of musical chairs, relocation and alterations from the original winning bid organisation to a new holding company. I have asked Kevin Standlee, chair of the WSFS Marks Protecttion Committee, to clarify what due diligence was taken to protect the Worldcon and Hugo trademarks. (Information via Arthur Lia and other commenters.)

Third, Chinese fandom is also upset over this. Using carefully selected phrasing to express their displeasure at "unspeakable factors". (Via Ersatz Culture at File 770)

Finally Hugo Administrator Dave McCarty categorically declares that the Ballot was conducted properly. He also declines to explain any of the discrepancies, or explain the precise reason for the unexplained disqualifications. He also stated that those who had any further questions "can't understand plain English" and "are slow".

This all strengthens my concerns, and widens them to the possibility that the name of the Hugo Awards and the Worldcon was deliberately coopted by a publishing business group in China. There's the strong possibility that this means that an unfettered licence to the trademarks that protect the Hugo Awards might have slipped into the hands of people willing to abuse them.

I note that Saudi Arabia, Tel Aviv, and Uganda all have bids for future Worldcons.

[patriottruth]

This is an hourly reminder that on March 4th, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States ordered donald j. trump to have 87 Democrats in both houses of Congress remove his insurrectionist disqualification from ever holding any federal office again. He failed to do so prior to November 5, 2024.

What that means is that between now and December 17th, 2024, donald j. trump has no choice but to go to Congress and have 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification, as he was ordered to do by SCOTUS on March 4th, 2024, or he's not legally the President Elect and cannot be inaugurated, sworn in, or hold federal office again on January 20, 2025. The clock is ticking!

Here's an evening update on why this will work. donald trump's legal tactics are deny, attempt to wiggle out of it on technicalities, and delay, delay, delay. Well, from November 2023 to March 4, 2024, donald trump not only said that he was never an officer of the United States, but that he also never swore an oath to support the United States Constitution. And then he said that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says nothing about running for office, only holding office, and since he's only running for office, nothing can keep him off the ballot. And that's where this has finally caught up to him.

SCOTUS illegally took the case to begin with. SCOTUS was required to kick the case back to Congress immediately to force a two-thirds of both houses vote to remove donald trump's insurrectionist disqualification. But they illegally denied Congress the ability to vote on it at the time, illegally legislated from the bench to keep donald trump on the ballot by illegally amending Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and dismissed the clear two-thirds vote requirement to replace it with "Congress must pass new legislation and amend Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in order to keep insurrectionists off of the ballot and out of office in the future. All six MAGA SCOTUS injustices can now be immediately and permanently disbarred from ever judging or practicing law anywhere in the United States now and in the future for that illegal legislating from the bench; because the U.S. Constitution clearly says that the Judiciary can never interfere with Congress legislating, or with the President enforcing the laws of the United States.

donald trump and his allies figured that was a win, that SCOTUS couldn't be challenged, that the Democrats could never get legislation passed to keep him off the ballot or from holding office again, and the matter was dropped. But that's where he was wrong; because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment still reads, and only legally reads, that the only way an insurrectionist can hold federal office again is by a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; and that means that now that donald trump can't try and use the technicality of "I'm not even trying to hold office, I'm just running for office," and he's actively trying to hold office with no technicality wiggle room, donald trump's only path to the White House is to have 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification by December 17th, 2017; and his favorite tactic of delay, delay, delay won't work because delaying means he can't be inaugurated, sworn in, and serve as the 47th President of the United States; and that means Kamala Harris would become 47th President of the United States by default.

If anyone is interested in fighting another trump presidency, contact every Democrat representative in the House of Representatives and the Senate and remind them that donald j. trump cannot be inaugurated, sworn in, and be the 47th President of the United States on January 20, 2025 unless 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification before December 17, 2024. Many of them have online contact forms. You may have to enter an address near their local office in their district for the contact form to go through, but I know they're going to want to be reminded of this by as many people as possible in order to save humanity and American democracy from donald trump. Plus, Kamala Harris can be contacted via the White House Vice President contact form; and as a presidential candidate and the President of the Senate, she and President Biden can do a lot to enforce donald trump having to have his insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate before December 17, 2024.

Rachel Maddow: Why was donald trump's campaign telling his supporters not to vote, they don't need any votes, and to skip the polls?

[wilwheaton]

Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling that keeps Trump on the ballot in Colorado was expected. All that remained to be seen was how they did it. And they did it in a way that renders the Disqualification Clause a dead letter. Unlike some observers, I didn’t think this was an easy call, with an obvious outcome that the conservative supermajority simply ignored. The ruling makes good points. This is a complicated issue. But the concurrence by the three liberal justices rightly notes that the majority decision creates an absurd result: Under the Disqualification Clause, it takes a two-thirds vote of Congress to remove the disability, but under the ruling a majority of Congress can wipe away the constitutional provision entirely. It’s actually worse than that. Any one chamber can nullify the Disqualification Clause. In the Senate, it can be nullified by the filibuster. In fact, it can be nullified by mere inaction. No enabling legislation? No Disqualification Clause. It is, in the words of the concurrence, a “special rule” carved out “to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy.”

In The Winter Of Our Trump Discontent, Things Look Bleak

[fandomsandfeminism]

Oof yall. The 2023 Hugo controversy has gotten much, much worse.

The Hugo's are another big Scifi/Fantasy book award, basically only second in prestige to the Nebulas. It's held by WorldCon, so who runs the awards changes each year- its handled by whatever group is doing the con.

And in 2023, it was held in China. And at the time, the finalist list took FOREVER to come out, and when it did, Babel (which had won the Nebula and Locus awards already) wasn't even nominated. Which everyone thought was *suspicious*

And NOW the actual nomination ballot data has come out. And not only do some of the counts... seem.....weird. BUT we've found out that not only Babel, but also Xiran Jay Zhao (who wrote the Chinese Yugioh book lol), and Sandman were disqualified late in nomination for being "ineligible" with no explanation for WHY.

The obvious explanation is Chinese censorship, either for the queer content, though other queer works were still included (including Legends and Lattes and Nona the Ninth), or some other political themes. Kuang and Zhou have content in their books that the Chinese government might not...love. but I dunno why Sandman got snubbed then? This is all speculation, but since the people actually running 2024 WorldCon are refusing to answer questions, what should we think? Neil Gaiman apparently tried to get answers and was basically brushed off.

And people are piiiiiiiissed

Mostly, I feel bad for T Kingfisher, who won Best Novel at the Hugo's for Nettle and Bone. Nettle and Bone was a great book! And now this win is always going to have this sheen of ick on it.

[contemplatingoutlander]

This is such an important article, the above link is a gift 🎁 link so that anyone can read the entire article, even if they don't subscribe to The New York Times. Here are some highlights:

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning. The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review. [...] He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.” [...] The provision in question is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War, it bars those who had taken an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” from holding office if they then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” [...] The article concluded that essentially all of that evidence pointed in the same direction: “toward a broad understanding of what constitutes insurrection and rebellion and a remarkably, almost extraordinarily, broad understanding of what types of conduct constitute engaging in, assisting, or giving aid or comfort to such movements.” It added, “The bottom line is that Donald Trump both ‘engaged in’ ‘insurrection or rebellion’ and gave ‘aid or comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.” [...] The provision’s language is automatic, the article said, establishing a qualification for holding office no different in principle from the Constitution’s requirement that only people who are at least 35 years old are eligible to be president. “Section 3’s disqualification rule may and must be followed — applied, honored, obeyed, enforced, carried out — by anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified to office,” the authors wrote. That includes election administrators, the article said. Professor Calabresi said those administrators must act. “Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” he said, adding that they may be sued for refusing to do so. [color/emphasis added]

Let's hope that election administrators across the US read this article and begin to set in motion the mechanism to prevent Donald Trump from appearing on ballots across the U.S., in case he does get the GOP nomination.

[deadpresidents]

Oh.

[rivkat]

If you've voted but want to do more, consider doing ballot curing over the next few days. Because red (and even purple) states have made voting a bit of a gotcha, people make errors on their ballots that could lead to disqualification--but there is a chance to cure the errors! This signup allows you to help Democratic voters fix their ballots and have their votes counted--something that is common enough to be the margin between victory and loss in swing states.

[simply-ivanka]

Supreme Court rules unanimously for Trump in Colorado ballot disqualification dispute

Supreme Court decision to affect more than 30 states that have considered challenges to remove Trump from 2024 ballot

[lifewithchronicpain]

The ageism and ableism with Biden is astounding. I’m not old but I know what it’s like to have my worst moments held against me.

He prepped to hard and he had a cold. He was dealing with brain fog it was so fucking obvious to me. Colds can bring it on especially when paired with over exhaustion. I don’t think he’ll make that mistake of over preparing for the second debate if it happens, and let’s hope no cold either.

His age has been an issue since the beginning and still he was picked as our candidate. And now some democrats want to reverse the votes of millions of people for having a bad night. Another democratic senator comes out wanting him to step down makes me want to fucking scream.

It’s Too Fucking Late!!!!

Old age brings disability but that doesn’t mean an automatic disqualification. We’ve had disabled presidents. Ageism presumes all people age in the same way deteriorating the same rate. We don’t. Someone who is 60 can look and feel 80 and some people are still working in their 90s, we are all different. And we all deserve the dignity of deciding when enough is enough for ourselves.

That’s not to say voters can’t consider it when someone is running for office, and voters decided to stick with Biden. There is also No One capable of stepping up this quickly.

Because fuck it democrats can never just all rally behind the candidate the way republicans do. It’s embarrassing. It’s why we are in this position and now some of them want to throw away the incumbency advantage for WHO!?

And I got nothing against Kamala Harris and I hope she runs in 2028, but with Trump on the ballot and this 2025 shit, I don’t want the misogyny vote at play. You know the people who didn’t like Trump but they just couldn’t vote for Hillary for some nebulous reason. 🤔