Donald Trump removed from Maine primary ballot by secretary of state
washingtonpost.com
Maine barred Donald Trump from the primary ballot Thursday, making it the second state in the country to block the former president from running again under a part of the Constitution that prevents insurrectionists from holding office.
The decision by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) is sure to be appealed. The Colorado Supreme Court last week found Trump could not appear on the ballot in that state, and the Colorado Republican Party has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The nation’s high court could resolve for all states whether Trump can run again.
I like candidates who weren't barred.
Frankly I don't love the ones who weren't, but we take what we can get
Royal also argued that Trump violated Section 3, while Gordon’s challenge took a different tack, arguing that Trump is not eligible to be on the ballot because he claims to have won the 2020 election, which would have been his second term. The 22nd Amendment states that no person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice.
The other arguments are Colorado redux
Oh thats clever!
"The 14th Amendment Constitution says you, an insurrectionist, cannot be on the ballot"
Trump: "I'm not an insurrectionist! I was defending my election to office in 2020!"
"Ah, okay then so you're admitting that you're trying to run for a 3rd term in violation of the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution
Clever, but no. He didn't get a second term, and his whining in a corner doesn't change that.
But for him to publicly admit that... it might snap a few people out of the illusion.
...I hope.
They don't care if he admits it or if it's true. They only care about what he instructs them to care about. Please, we must all start to understand this otherwise it's us living in an illusion.
"They" are human beings. "They" are our family and neighbors. "They" are people who are being exploited for political gain. You'd do well to keep that in mind.
I don't think the idea was to dehumanize, but rather to be more aware of the shared psychosis so many people are living in.
"They" claim that Trump won the election without any regard to facts and evidence. Imagining that "they" will suddenly change their mind if they get just one more piece of factual information is foolish considering everything we've seen so far. We must find another way to get through to "them".
Just because I'm using a plural pronoun I'm not dehumanising anyone. Please read what is actually written and keep your desire to scold people at home.
They have been behaving like members of a cult and have alienated family members, relatives and friends with their MAGA-narrative filled of hate and xenophobia.
You know what I think is funny? You used 'they' the same way one comment earlier:
Oh, just noticed this reply.
In the first example "They" is a generalization, in the second is a reference to a specific set of people.
"They" are also objectively stupid. And they are willing, enthusiastic, participants in their "exploitation".
They most certainly are not. They have no compassion, no intelligence, no critical thinking, no love, and no respect for human life.
They are mammals. Even primates. I'll give you that. But they are sub-human.
They have caused unimaginable pain and suffering and they enjoy it all and run on hatred.
All of the things you listed are attributes humans have. There is no such thing as sub-humans, you're thinking of regular humans.
Trump supporters are easily fooled idiots but they are fellow humans nonetheless. Thinking of a group of people as "sub-humans" oppens the door to treating that group as inferior and not worthy of respect which leads to fascist tendencies. Please be aware of what your words mean.
I’m aware. That group is inferior and not worthy of respect. They are a cancer to our society and we should be making huge efforts to cure them.
Inferior is extreme though. I would say gullible idiots for the Qult crowd, but most people are just wholey uninformed. Uninformed voters are more likely to become single issue voters (IMO the worst kind). I don't know if you noticed, but the news cycle is exhausting. So, I could just ignore it and choose the side that wants to control women's bodies because I'm superstitious. Wouldn't even know democracy was under any threat at all. Of course, some are informed, but are so concerned with controlling women's bodies that they wouldn't mind totalitarianism.
Another often overlooked factor is people treating politics as another team sport. Some people will just never vote for the other side. And again, if they are uninformed, there will never be anything to change their mind.
I think a better way to say it, would be respect. I might hold more respect for someone who can critical think there way through the bs, but if they can't I wouldn't say they are inferior.
They are not inferior, they are badly educated and thus easily blinded. It's not inherent, it's circumstantial that they're idiots.
Holy fuck, dude. "They are sub-human" ??? Literally asking here: Who talks like that? I can think of at least one historical figure.
It’s obviously childish as fuck to be playing such twisted logic games with something as important as the Presidency. Clever is not a word I want applied to American jurisprudence
Obviously they're not operating in good faith, so they'll come up with some nonsense justification as to why president loser deserves a 3rd term or something anyway. But that's still a novel approach.
Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that someone deciding to bar Trump based on this “third term” argument is acting in good faith?
Why wouldn't they be? Just because a premise is farcical doesn't mean you can't accept it for the sake of argument.
mondo big LOLs there. It's not likely to hold water in court, imo, and I'm guessing that the argument will be that he never took the oath for the second term. Buuut it might mean Trump is either going to have to admit to the court that he didn't win or he's going to be told by the SCOTUS that he didn't. Get dunked on, idiot.
If this picks up steam, we could very well see another Republican candidate (most likely DeSantis) win the nomination and become Joe Biden's opponent.
On the other hand, the SCOTUS is Republican controlled. They already got Roe V Wade overturned and could very well rule in Trump's favour.
Part of me truly worries that America will be the first to fall to a new wave of Fascism, and that this will spur further swings in Europe. (AfD are performing alarmingly well in East Germany, whilst Le Pen has been closer than ever before to winning the French presidency.)
DeSantis would get fucking wrecked in a national race, Biden's team would laugh their asses off, then get back to sending crib-seeking missiles to Netanyahu.
Careful, that's exactly what we said about Trump.
Trump had charisma, DeSantis has anti-charisma. The more people see of him the less people like him. He pissed off big business with his Disney stuff.
There's a reason his campaign is in hospice care.
If it isn't Trump it'll be Haley. She would have a real shot.
But it's gonna be Trump anyway, so this is kind of moot.
You underestimate just how disliked Biden is, and how many Americans honestly believe that Trump had the last election stolen from him.
Also, the fact that Trump survived two impeachments, spurred an attempted insurrection and is only now starting to face state/federal charges that in any other democracy would have had him immediately struck off from the ballot is worrying. It's set precedent that could allow a more sane, manipulative and competent candidate to commandeer the country.
The only possible good that could come out of a DeSantis nomination would be if Trump ran as an independent in protest and heavily split the right wing vote, which would guarantee a second Biden term.
I agree with everything that both of you said.
Desantis would get wrecked in a cognitive dissonance race with trump.
That's the entire point, isn't it? To prevent the insurrectionist from being on the ballot, not "prevent the republicans from being on the ballot."
More than that, some people will still vote for Trump as a write in, which will split the Republican vote and force them to lose
East Germany?
Yes. The former DDR part is commonly still called that. It still differs noticeably from the West in terms of culture and level of development. Unfortunately, the entire region has moved significantly to the right politically. So much even that an openly right-wing extremist party has a majority in multiple parts of it.
I didn't know Dance Dance Revolution got a party. Weird thing.
We have a group at work that uses the abbreviation "DDRC". I often think of them as the Dance Dance Revolution Committee. Their actual purpose is much, much less fun.
(I also often say "Time has no meaning there" about them, referencing Star Trek Generations. Because they literally do not care how long they delay projects. It's not their problem, and they refuse to even acknowledge there is a concern. I really hate dealing with them, if you haven't guessed.)
It's like saying Southern California. It's just a region within a larger state.
I hate to say it, but the world is overdue for a new world war. Fascism seems to rise when the previous generation that experienced Fascism dies off. Nobody who went through it wants that to happen again, but like toddlers, we need to touch the stove to learn it's hot.
Correction: the rich want another world war and are pushing for it. The brainwashing that has been going on for years wasn't paid by your average joe.
And as usual, it will be paid with the blood of the poor
Maine is one of two states (Nebraska is the other) that doesn't give all their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in their state. Trump got one electoral vote there in both 2016 and 2020.
This true, though Republicans have gerrymandered the districts so bad that it almost always ends up as all Republican anyway. Look at how crazy this looks: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska%27s_congressional_districts#/media/File%3ANebraska_Congressional_Districts%2C_118th_Congress.tif.
For some fucking reason, Lincoln (a liberal city that's the second largest in Nebraska) is in the same district as a bunch of rural towns that I would have to drive for hours to get to. Sarpy county, which most consider to be a part of Omaha (and again, is about an hour-ish drive from Lincoln, was recently switched to our district because they are largely conservative, and they redrew it just before we were supposed to be electing our new congressperson (which, by the way, was a special election because the previous Republican congressman was convicted of felonies relating to lying about foreign campaign contributions, go figure). A democrat swept Lincoln, but lost because they piled on enough rural counties in the fucked up map. Republicans have no respect for democracy.
While true, I believe this is only relevant for the primary at this point.
Seriously. We ALL SAW it on Jan 6! Dude wrecked our countries record of peaceful transition all because he threw a bitch ass tantrum. Thanks, jerk.
If anyone's arguing the other way... Where was the national guard? An angry mob attacked our highest ranking politicians at the nations capital and it was less defended than your average Walmart on Black Friday. In the end Pence had to call them in despite Trump watching the entire thing unfold on live TV.
It was an orchestrated attempted coup, full stop.
I really wish that he wasn't stopped from attending it like he wanted too, this would be such an open and shut thing if otherwise. Now the courts are all hung up on if he participated or not. He obviously fucking caused it but you know, due process and all.
I'm thankful he didn't attend. His sycophants would likely have gone much further with their GodKing present, egging them on.
Silver lining, he could have gotten shot sticking his head through a window
Yea, honestly, in the overall picture of things I am too, because who knows what would have actually happened if things had been taken further with him there like you said. But just for this scenario where it went as far as it did - the court is now hung up on technicalities, it would be a different conversation if he had.
Former president Donald Trump arrives to speak at a campaign event held on Dec. 17 in Reno, Nev. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post) Maine barred Donald Trump from the primary ballot Thursday, making it the second state in the country to block the former president from running again under a part of the Constitution that prevents insurrectionists from holding office.
The decision by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) is sure to be appealed. The Colorado Supreme Court last week found Trump could not appear on the ballot in that state, and the Colorado Republican Party has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The nation’s high court could resolve for all states whether Trump can run again. In 1868, three years after the end of the Civil War, the United States adopted the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to provide legal protections to those who had formerly been enslaved. In addition, Section 3 of the amendment barred those who had sworn an oath to the Constitution from holding office if they engaged in insurrection. That provision was used at the time to keep former Confederates out of office but has rarely been mentioned in recent decades.
Story continues below advertisement
Trump’s critics cited that section of the Constitution after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, arguing Trump had incited and participated in an insurrection through his actions before and during the riot. They submitted challenges to his candidacy around the country.
So far, only Colorado and Maine have sided with those challenging his ability to run again. The Colorado court has put its 4-3 decision on hold while the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to take the case, so for the time being his name is slated to appear on the primary ballot there.
“The events of January 6, 2021 were unprecedented and tragic," Bellows wrote in Thursday’s decision. "They were an attack not only upon the Capitol and government officials, but also an attack on the rule of law. The evidence here demonstrates that they occurred at the behest of, and with the knowledge and support of, the outgoing President. The U.S. Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government, and [Maine law]requires me to act in response.” Story continues below advertisement
Colorado, Maine and more than a dozen other states hold their primaries on March 5, which is also known as Super Tuesday. Election officials need firm answers on who can appear on ballots weeks before then so they can print ballots and mail them to absentee voters, including ones who are overseas.
The challenges to Trump’s candidacy have focused on state primaries because Republicans won’t choose their nominee until states hold their nominating contests and the party holds its national convention in July. If Trump’s ability to run has not been resolved by then, attention would shift to the general election.
Colorado Supreme Court ruling bars Trump from primary ballot
Trump’s opponents have targeted their efforts to states where it is easiest to object to a candidate’s eligibility. In Maine, voters filed their challenges under a state law that allows them to lodge objections with the secretary of state. Bellows held an 8-hour-long live-streamed hearing on those challenges on Dec. 15 under a provision of that law and determined Thursday that Trump’s name cannot appear on Maine’s primary ballot. Story continues below advertisement
Trump has five days to appeal the determination to Maine’s Superior Court. From there, the appeal could go to the state’s Supreme Judicial Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.
During the hearing, Bellows did not offer hints on how she was leaning and asked attorneys to weigh in on whether they believed she had the authority to prevent Trump’s name from appearing on the ballot. The Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision four days after Bellows held her hearing, and she allowed Trump and the challengers to file briefs responding to the ruling and say whether it should influence her thinking about whether Trump should appear on the ballot in Maine. Maine’s legislature chose Bellows as secretary of state nearly three years ago. She previously served as a state senator and executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine. She was defeated in a 2014 run against Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).
Story continues below advertisement
On Wednesday, a day before Bellows issued her ruling, attorneys for Trump asked her to disqualify herself from the case because of past comments she made about Jan. 6. In social media posts in 2021, she called the riot at the U.S. Capitol an insurrection and said she supported Trump’s impeachment for the attack.
The high courts in Minnesota and Michigan recently allowed Trump’s name to appear on the primary ballot in those states. Meanwhile, challengers have asked the Oregon Supreme Court to review the issue. A Texas tax consultant has lost a string of challenges to Trump’s candidacy that he has filed in federal courts around the country. The most closely watched court, however, is the U.S. Supreme Court. The Colorado Republican Party filed its request for review on Wednesday and, Trump is expected to do the same soon.
Patrick Marley writes about voting issues in the Upper Midwest for The Washington Post. He previously covered the Wisconsin Capitol for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
When Republican states start doing this to democratic candidates for basically no reason, then democracy is completely over.
we can't ignore the law just because they will. we can't fail to act in good faith just because they will act in bad faith. we can't negotiate with domestic terrorists.
Thank you! This is an easy pill for some of us to swallow when these states are barring Trump, but blocking a candidate from the ballot for ANY reason at the state level sets a dangerous precedent.
Yeah, but straight-up ignoring the Constitution is also a big problem, so.... Feels like maybe if your try to overturn an election you shouldn't get to run for office.
I agree, but I also feel that decision should be made at the federal level thereby barring a candidate from ALL states rather than states selectively barring candidates they don't like.
States run their own elections. It's not up to the feds.
Some aspects of the elections can be dictated by the feds, some are left to the states. If it was purely up to the states the civil rights act would have no power.
Most are left to the states, I’d argue. Traditionally how the state determines and sends electors is entirely up to them, they just can’t disenfranchise their voters per the rights in the constitution.
There's a reason that there is such a tiny list of reasons for justifying this. It's supposed to be a near impossibility for anyone to have qualified for such a measure. And then there's Trump who just blasted himself right past that hurdle.
Hopefully what comes out of this is a rigid set of standards that any state has to meet before resorting to this in the future. It remains to be seen whether those strictures will come down in favor of Trump or not. They may well decide that he's met all the requirements for disqualification and he will be the benchmark (skidmark might be more accurate) going forward.
can you imagine that they won't do this anyway, though? the house just passed an impeachment inquiry without even being able to articulate charges, out and out admitting that it's a fishing expedition. no appeasement. we use every weapon in our arsenal to defend democracy from the terrorists.
That orrrrrrr the housing crisis is relieved in rural areas and corporations pick up a ton of farm land dirt cheap
How does relieving the housing crisis lead to corporations buying cheap farmland?
And how’s any of that related to candidates being removed from the states’ ballots?
I think the commenter you're replying to made some logical enough jumps.
Like it seems that they're assuming people in Republican rural counties who start doing this to random candidates would move out, causing a localized housing crisis in that area that banks could come in and capitalize on like the vultures that they tend to act like. That would lead to the pattern that they're painting in their comment.
So I can imagine how it's all connected, but that said, I don't claim to know the inner mind of this poster so I could be very wrong.
Let’s keep this going folks!
The Constitution doesn't give the deciding power to the SCOTUS, it requires a 3/4 vote of Congress to resolve this.
It's completely unconstitutional for the SCOTUS to be making the final decision. They should be the ones penalizing any state that doesn't remove him from the ballot for violating the Constitution.
scotus decides what the constitution means, though. and they'll decide it doesn't mean this, because they're openly corrupt, bought and paid for with receipts.
That would only hold true if Donald trump was officially convicted of the crime of insurrection. A crime which so far he hasn't even been charged with. Until he is charged tried and convicted of insurrection the 14th amendment isnt applicable here and I'd bet my money that's exactly what the surpreme court is going to rule on.
If they are serious about wanting to remove him from the vallt then they should start there. By trying him for insurrection.
The 14th doesn’t require a conviction. It was written in the wake of the civil war, to prevent confederates from holding office without needing to convict them.
The union didn’t want to have to drag every confederate to court just to keep them out of office, because the union knew it would be impossible for the courts to handle and would run counter to reunification efforts. But they were afraid that the confederates would attempt to seize power via the elections once it became clear that the insurrection had failed. So they wanted a way to preemptively bar any former confederate from running for office.
I bet Zengen is right though. I bet if SCOTUS hears the case the majority opinion will pretend that a conviction is a necessary requirement to use the 14th amendment, even though it obviously isn't.
Sec 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment has been invoked at least 8 times, none of them were convicted. The most recent case was in 2022, when a judge ordered a county commissioner be removed from office for his actions on Jan 6.
But the court isn't concerned about the lack of a conviction. Trump and his team are claiming that the amendment does not apply to the President.
constitution says absolutely zero about conviction, and 14th has been invoked in the past against people without convictions. but you're right, scotus will ignore both the constitution and precedent because they've been hand selected to grant the presidency to the traitor.
So it's liberals for "states' rights", like in "Firefly" and SW Prequels?
(Not American, so you may consider this joke dumb.)
Am american, not sure what you're trying to say here.
What does this even mean? If he allowed in all the other states and wins. Do these 2 states have to follow suit? Do they elect their own president? Are they independent for the interim?
You can still vote for someone not on the ballot, it's just a means of reducing the vote
Interesting, would you still be able to write someone's name down if it's not on the ballot? And could that be anyone's name?
It is common for people to vote Mickey Mouse as a write in for voters that are unhappy with the names on the ballot. Sometimes a humorous Write In gets a decent chunk of the vote.
Edit: https://www.texastribune.org/2013/01/02/voting-mickey-mouse/
I wouldn't vote for that rat. People don't know how to vote straight, Goofy is the clear best option.
Goofy is a terrible choice. He has voiced no concern of the safety of others and has been quoted of saying, "and I'll fuckin do it again."
Despite his terrible choices and lack of surroundings both physical and political, he has also said, "Now, how come you always think I'm gonna lead you into some sort of calamity?"
His complete disregard for the safety of others is another red flag and I, for one, will not vote for that goof.
He's at least a good dad.
Maybe the rich duck then. He doesn't seem like dishonest even though he's rich, which means he's bad.
Kentucky voted in Scrooge McDuck.
But the question is, is it still counted as a valid vote if he's not allowed on the ballot? Doesn't make sense to me why it would be counted
They still keep statistics even on candidates that are invalid
What if two people with the same name are sort of politically active (not on ballot) and you write a name down, which one gets the vote?
And what if I come up with a meme to vote for some random person, and people copy that and all vote for someone who unknowingly wins.
I'm interested if they have protocols for these (unlikely, but possible) scenarios.
That varies. Usually they're expected to include distinguishers, if it's unclear then the two candidates can end up challenging how they're counted. It's not unheard of that they're split evenly but they try to look at clues. Stuff like party affiliation can be used as clues, as well as any included titles, etc.
If it's a random who didn't enter the election at all it's likely to not count as a valid vote (especially because of your previous question where it can't be certain all voters mean the same person with that name). If it's a previously anonymous person with a unique name entering the election in time they're likely to get all the votes in their name even if the voters did it as a joke and perhaps didn't even know such a person entered. If the writing on the vote doesn't make it clear it's intended to be invalid it will count.
Also, crude measures like an even split is more common if the count of ambiguous votes are too few to change the election result, but if it's too close then it can end up with a forced new election
Very interesting, thanks! And I'd guess that if it's like a celebrity who gets mass voted on, without him/her knowing or agreeing and wins, they could easily just say they're not up to the task, minus peer-pressure. In theory if they'd get all the votes, the elections should be done once more.
But if people insist and again only vote on this celebrity, could that person explicitly upfront claim not to be a valid vote?
https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/vc/vce/vce03/mobile_browsing
https://www.usa.gov/write-in-candidates
In some jurisdictions it's possible for an initially unwilling write-in candidate to accept a nomination but it's not the standard
If there's no valid winner then you can end up doing a new vote again and again endlessly
There was that "against all candidates" option in Russian ballots (on various levels) before 2006.
Usually most popular among such a big unrepresented suppressed depressed part of population as unreformed communists.
Lincoln didn’t qualify to be on the ballot in 10 out of 11 Confederate states. In Virginia northerners were successful in getting enough signatures to get him on but he got basically no votes.
The Supreme Court will have to rule whether or not the 14th disqualifies him. We can't have states disagree on who the president is.
Are we going to pretend SCOTUS isn't going to install him, like they did with Bush?
Considering the court is currently stacked with his own judges, I'm definitely not optimistic about them ruling against him.
This might be a play to get him to admit he didn't win a second term.
Maybe it's wishful thinking, and the most ardent cultists will just pivot... but a girl can dream. It might snap some people out of the illusion.
lol
Get rekt trumphole
Maybe if this happens in enough states, it'll compell the Supreme Court to rule favorably.
It fucking sucks that politics steers the decisions of the highest court in the land, but that's where we are.
Get fucked, Cheeto Mussolini.