Minnesota Democratic Party Sues to Remove Trump/Pence from Ballot

Discussion in 'Politics' started by InTheLight, Sep 9, 2016.

  1. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,272
    Likes Received:
    620
    Here's another episode from Trump's "I only surround myself with the best people" campaign.

    It appears that the Minnesota GOP party did not follow state law when they nominated Electoral College alternate electors. According to state law, both the electors and their alternates must be nominated and voted on at the state party convention. Turns out the MN GOP party nominated and voted on electors at the state convention, but forgot to select the alternate electors in the same, required manner. Instead, the state GOP party executive committee appointed alternate electors at a later date and then filed the names with the Minnesota secretary of state just before the required deadline.

    http://www.startribune.com/minnesot...er-trump-pence-removed-from-ballot/392834361/

    I expect Trump's Minnesota campaign chair will be fired, though it would be misdirected anger since the guy was appointed in early August and the state GOP convention where the electors were to be legally nominated was held back in May.
     
  2. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ouch.

    I do, however, expect the Minnesota Supreme Court to allow it.

    Honestly, I think it's arguably a restriction on freedom of speech/expression to require nominations to occur in a specific manner within a private organization (a political party).
     
  3. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,272
    Likes Received:
    620
    The law is explicit. The law was not followed. If the Supreme Court allows it, it would be an example of legislating from the bench, wouldn't it?

    Don't we want to follow the rule of law at all times?
     
  4. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    IMO, the law (at least this specific provision) is unconstitutional.
     
  5. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,659
    Likes Received:
    158
    How so?
     
  6. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,272
    Likes Received:
    620
    You seem to be saying that the state has no reason to regulate the manner in which a political party will put forth its candidates and/or electors for an election. The carrying out of the election is the responsibility of the secretary of state's office for a particular state. I don't think it is unreasonable for the state to tell the political party how it wants them to present their candidates or electors. Is it a restriction on freedom of speech for candidates to register and pay a filing fee with a state's secretary of state?
     
  7. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    IMO, it violates the 1st Amendment's protection of freedom of speech by dictating the manner in which a private entity must choose its electors. Regulating how those electors are submitted is another matter, as it involves practical ballot issues. But the selection itself should not be regulated, if at all possible.

    I think there's a decent case for a 14th amendment due process argument. Without having some form of remedy, the law fails to consider the possibility that a delegate convention may be somehow impractical. Parties are left without recourse.
     
  8. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    No, I say the state should not have the authority to regulate how the electors are selected. That's the freedom of speech/expression component.

    Having made their own selections in whatever means they choose, then the state can (and should) have procedures for getting on the ballot. That's not restricting choice; that's just a matter of proper procedure to follow after your choice is made.

    I don't have a quibble with anything you just said other than what I described.
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    I find your position here contradictory to your position on voter id laws
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    (pssst, ...we're talking about Minnesota here...)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    Even so, an emergency appeal to SCOTUS could be in order. Because SCOTUS typically wants to keep up the appearance of impartiality (LOL, right?), I imagine that they would do what was necessary to keep a major party candidate on the ballot.

    I think they have a case to do so, but I think they'd make up one, if need be.
     
  12. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,272
    Likes Received:
    620
    I don't see what my views on that have to do with this discussion and I'm certain you don't know what my stance on voter ID is. For the benefit of any one that cares, here it is:

    I believe voter photo ID laws are unnecessary since there is so little actual voter fraud occurring, that is, the number of fraudulent votes cast are statistically insignificant. Voter registration fraud does exist, though.

    If a state wants to have voter photo ID laws, that's their prerogative, and I really don't care. I just think it is a heretofore unneeded layer of additional government regulations.

    Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo
     
  13. 777

    777
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,157
    Likes Received:
    61
    This is just a DFL trash suit but the fact that they filed it this late makes me really wonder about their internal polls. No way Trump is doing well there, right? Right? Then it could be to suppress the popular vote, but why?

    It's trash because:

    "Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon accepted the filing and added Trump and vice presidential candidate Mike Pence as choices in the Nov. 8 election."

    And there was no violation of "the law". not THIS law:

    Presidential electors and alternates for the major political parties of this state shall be nominated by delegate conventions called and held under the supervision of the respective state central committees of the parties of this state. At least 71 days before the general election day the chair of the major political party shall certify to the secretary of state the names of the persons nominated as presidential electors, the names of persons nominated as alternate presidential electors, and the names of the party candidates for president and vice president. The chair shall also certify that the party candidates for president and vice president have no affidavit on file as a candidate for any office in this state at the ensuing general election.

    The law says the nominee must be chosen "BY" convention, not "AT" the convention and there's no way Trump could be placed on their ballot until after the MN state convention. Marco Rubio won that state.
     
  14. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,691
    Likes Received:
    242
    As if the Dems care about the law.

    I don't see this going anywhere. Disenfranchise half the state of their vote over a trifle? Bet it don't happen.
     
  15. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,272
    Likes Received:
    620
    Law says electors "shall be nominated by delegate convention". The delegates convened at the state convention. That's when it's supposed to be done. There is no other time that all the delegates are in convention. They did nominate electors at that time but forgot to nominate alternate electors.

    I have a friend that is a delegate, that is a Trump supporter, and he says this could be trouble.



    Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo
     
  16. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,272
    Likes Received:
    620
    Trump and Pence can be on the ballot. The sticking point is if they win Minnesota their electoral college electors were not chosen legally. This could be a problem.

    Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo
     
  17. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    I won't quibble about the law because I've already staked out my position on its constitutionality (or lack thereof).

    That being said, politically, the best thing that could happen to Trump is for him to lose that lawsuit. Talk about playing into the "system is rigged" narrative! He'd be on every news program spouting off that message, and it would be very convincing. "If they can't win, they'll just sue you off the ballot!"

    That would be campaign gold. The DFL leadership must be a bunch of idiots to walk into that trap.
     
  18. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    And there isn't a chance on the planet that this actually stays a problem.

    What are they going to do? Substitute Hillary's electors? That won't fly.

    Have no electors at all? That won't fly either.

    What would happen is a Bush v. Gore situation---if it got to SCOTUS, they'd say to accept Trump's electors, period. The last thing we need is some sort of perceived coup.

    Of course, this will only matter if the state will make the difference in the election. Otherwise, it's a moot point.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. 777

    777
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,157
    Likes Received:
    61
    Yeah, but remember the LAW here found 3000 votes in a garbage bag during their contested election and the MN Supreme Court didn't see a problem admitting all those Al Franken votes.

    Delegate convention, meaning a meeting at some point in time of the delegates, it does NOT have to be at the state convention. The MN SOS certified the ticket and Trump/Pence are officially on the ballot.

    http://mngop.com/release-rpm-blasts-democrats-for-frivolous-lawsuit/

    and I know all about Martin, Mr. "Put cross hairs on the Pawlenty family". I wonder if he's a desperate as he looks here.
     

Share This Page

Loading...