Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses “Insurrection” Challenge To Trump Primary Ballot As Premature
Rejected challenge to Trump appearing on the Republican primary ballot on procedural grounds – that the insurrection clause doesn’t even arguably apply to primary ballots, so it is premature. Contrary to how some are spinning it, this is not a ruling on the merits, it just punts the issue to another day.
There are several challenges around the country asserting that Donald Trump should be barred from appearing on presidential ballots under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment.
The Minnesota Supreme Court just rejected a challenge to Trump appearing on the Republican primary ballot on procedural grounds – that the insurrection clause doesn’t even arguably apply to primary ballots, so it is premature. Contrary to how some are spinning it, this is not a ruling on the merits, it just punts the issue to another day.
From the Order (emphasis added):
With respect to the only ripe issue before us at this time, we conclude that under section 204B.44, there is no “error” to correct here as to the presidential primary election if former President Trump’s name is included on the presidential primary ballot after the Chair of the Republican Party of Minnesota provides his name to the Secretary of State, notwithstanding petitioners’ claim that former President Trump is disqualified from holding office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Legislature enacted the presidential nomination primary process to allow major political parties to select delegates to the national conventions of those parties; at those conventions the selected delegates will cast votes along with delegates from all of the other states and territories and choose a presidential candidate who will subsequently appear on general election ballots. See Minn. Stat. § 207A.11(d) (2022) (explaining that the presidential nomination primary “only applies to a major political party that selects delegates at the presidential nomination primary to send to a national convention”). This is “a process that allows political parties to obtain voter input in advance of a nomination decision made at a national convention.” De La Fuente v. Simon, 940 N.W.2d 477, 492 (Minn. 2020). Thus, although the Secretary of State and other election officials administer the mechanics of the election, this is an internal party election to serve internal party purposes, and winning the presidential nomination primary does not place the person on the general election ballot as a candidate for President of the United States…. And there is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office.
Because there is no error to correct here as to the presidential nomination primary, and petitioners’ other claims regarding the general election are not ripe, the petition must be dismissed, but without prejudice as to petitioners bringing a petition raising their claims as to the general election.
What this means is that any ultimate resolution, at least in Minnesota, is delayed until after the primary.
So what do I think will ultimately happen as to these challenges? Funny you should ask. Yesterday I was on Chicago’s Morning Answer with Dan Proft and Amy Jacobson (no relation), and the issue came up, sandwiched in between a discussion of the Trump civil trial in NY and the Cornell antisemitism problem:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
MN is forever doomed to blue sadness, but at least they didn’t set a precedent for other states to follow.
Minnesota is a cancerous tumor and the rest of the country is infected too
This is part of the 2024 last minute strategy.
Last minute we’ll swap Newsom for Biden. Last minute we’ll make it illegal for Trump to be on ballot. Everything in 2024 will be calculated to prevent a reasonable reaction because there won’t be time.
Interesting that Democrats, who are infamous falling for hoaxes, maintain that because they believe there was insurrection, let alone by Trump, that it means there is a legal finding that would suffice for the 14th Amendment to apply. They fell for Tlaib’s tears, too. Their anti-democratic instincts are gross. Do they even care about anything besides themselves?
By the way, DeSantis is doing quite well right now at the debate. So is Ramaswammy.
devate tonight? Is anyone paying attention.
PS How are RDS’s platform shoes?
Did not come up. It’s actually been okay. They are talking substance and getting info out there that might be new for some viewers. Haley called Ramaswammy “scum.”
Wow
That makes no sense, at all. The idiots on the Minnesota Supreme Court are saying that people ineligible for the Presidency (which is what this case is about) are fine on primary ballots … to be candidates for the Presidency??
Of course, our courts and SecStates have already made a mockery of our government and the Constitution. Roger Calero, who was not even an American citizen, let alone a natural born one, was on the Presidential ballots for a handful of states … TWICE!! The guy was a Nicaraguan green card holder … on the ballot for the Presidency. Barky was allowed to run when he never had to prove, in any way, shape, or form that he was a natural born citizen (which he was not).
The idiot dems’ insurrection case against Trump is a farce but this ruling is, itself, a farce. The fact is that pretty much all democrats were participants and supporters of the only actual insurrection attempts made in America in the last 100 years, in the riots and looting and arson and territory grabbing of the summer of 2020, and the whole party should have been wiped from ever holding any offices.
An explanation fo the Minnesota Presidential nomination primary law states:
The actual law reads:
“207A.12 CONDUCTING PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION PRIMARY.
[…]
(d) The results of the presidential nomination primary must bind the election of delegates in each party.”
The state cannot force delegates to be bound to an ineligible candidate.
Our courts are filled with retards and criminals.
Yes, that is exactly what they said, in so many words. As they pointed out, there is no law banning such people from primary ballots, and without such a law on what authority could the court order them excluded? How can you disagree with that? How can you say it makes no sense, or that they’re idiots for saying it? If you think such a law exists, point to it. If not, tell us where the court could have the authority to dictate to a political party who may run in an internal process of that party?
Those states had no law preventing this, so on what grounds could the SecStates have excluded him, or the courts order them to?
That’s not what it says. Even for eligible candidates, the states can’t dictate to delegates to an internal party convention how they must vote. That’s entirely a matter for the party rules.
What the law says is that the primary results must bind the election of delegates. The state party can’t decide to ignore the primary result and appoint different delegates to the convention than the ones the primary voters chose.
Because you cannot have someone up for election for a position for which they are ineligible. It is just common sense. That is generally called FRAUD. It is implicit in all elections overseen by the states that the people and things you vote for are actually able to take the positions or be done. You cannot have a frog on the Presidential ballot, even if people want to vote for a frog, because a frog can not be President and no one can send electors to Washington to vote for a frog.
This ain’t rocket surgery. If someone is ineligible for a position then the state cannot offer a ballot with that ineligible person on it. It isn’t even open to reasonable argument. Your position is ridiculous.
LOL.
The state is certainly dictating to the party which delegates must be accepted. So the state is taking a major position in its power in the primary.
But to try and argue that a state can help facilitate the selection of an ineligible person or thing as the candidate for an office is laughable.
You are making an argument that no normal person would accept. This is the sort of foolishness that passes for cleverness among lawyers but makes intelligent people laugh (or cry) at its rank silliness and idiocy. This is why no one trusts our elections – because they are filled with complete BS like this. And we’re not even at the voting part, yet.
Like I said, states have a poor record in this sort of thing, with a non-American having already appeared multiple times on multiple state ballots for the Presidency (not primaries, but general) and having had Barky run while it was clear that there were serious questions of his eligiblity (he was not eligible) and none of our courts had the courage or sense to even hear any of the many serious and justified cases brought. ANd now we have this idiocy, where a state court is arguing that the state-run primary cannot disallow an ineligible person, or vegetable, or thing, from being on the ballot and having people vote for it. Crazy stuff. Banana Republic stuff.
First of all, says who? There have been quite a few elections with animals on the ballot, and even some that the animal won. There is no fraud without a knowing material misrepresentation on which someone relies to their detriment. The entire concept does not apply here.
In any case, since when is someone ineligible for the presidency also ineligible for the Republican nomination? Does the Republican Party have such a rule? If not, then anyone is eligible who the party says is eligible.
This is not a presidential ballot. You keep ignoring what the court pointed out explicitly: a primary is an internal party process. It is entirely up to the party to decide who should be on the ballot.
Again, this is just not true, even for actual elections, which a primary is not.
That’s not the same thing at all. The state is telling the parties that if you want us to run your primary for you, you must accept the delegates that win the primary. If you can’t do that, then this isn’t a primary, it’s a straw poll, and we’re not interested in running it for you. But once those delegates are elected it can’t and doesn’t tell them how to vote. That’s a matter for party rules.
You’re just making up a load of sh*t and insisting that it must be so, offering no evidence whatsoever. Well, it isn’t so.
Oh, and 0bama was definitely eligible. There is no possible question about it. It’s concerning that he didn’t have to prove this. The various states should certainly toughen up their rules so nobody gets on the general election ballot without proving their eligibility. But after about two years of stonewalling he did eventually produce his birth certificate, and no, it is not a forgery. Anyone claiming it’s a forgery is as cuckoo as a flat-earther. I had been wondering what he could be hiding, but it turned out he wasn’t hiding anything, he was just having fun playing with people’s heads.
Actually, since a natural-born citizen was defined at the time of the writing of the Constitution as a person born of two citizen parents, Obama did not qualify as his father was not, nor did he ever seek citizenship. So by the text of the United States Constitution, he did not qualify and was still placed into that office twice and served two illegitimate terms.
Stop right there. No, it wasn’t. Not then and not ever.
The current legal consensus is that “natural born citizen” meant “citizen from birth”.
The only other viable theory is that it means “born under the jurisdiction”, which would exclude children born to abroad to citizens who are neither diplomats nor military. In other words it would exclude George Romney and Ted Cruz, but not John McCain, whereas the first theory includes them all.
That is silly and anyone who would make that claim is silly. What a “natural born citizen” is is someone who is born into circumstances that make it so obvious that he is a citizen that it is “natural”. It is not someone who needed any sort of law defining that he was a citizen, whether from birth or not, but one born in such circumstances that no sane person would have any doubt that he was a citizen of the nation specified – and only a citizen of the nation of the nation specified.
Born to two citizen parents (only citizens of that nation) and born in that nation are circumstances that make one a natural, obvious, citizen of that nation, requiring no law or definition or explanation. It is clear. That is a “natural born citizen”.
I suggest you read the law of Nations by Vettel. Well documented that during the Constitutional Convention they actually thanked a contributor for donating multiple copies of that book and part of what they wrote was based upon it. And yes a natural born citizen was a person born of two citizen parents. In other words your lineage is pure because you have no other citizenship at the time of your birth. My wife wouldn’t qualify, she’s a naturalized citizen, my son wouldn’t qualify because when he was born my wife was not yet a citizen. Both of my daughters would qualify because when they were born my wife was also a citizen.
A primary is not an election for President. If a party wants to nominate someone or something to run for President then at that time it’s Doom on them
LOL.
Square that question with jungle primaries, please.
Not that I think jungle primaries are legal, in any way, shape, or form, but their existence and acceptance means that states certainly consider themselves able to do all sorts of stuff concerning the internal machinations of party primary politics.
Jungle primaries are pre-run-off general elections. They aren’t even primaries of any sort. And the parties have nothing to say about that, at all, and our courts seem to have all accepted it. So cut me a break on the claim that states can’t interfere in party primaries.
Huh? Square what? A jungle primary is not an internal process of any party. It has nothing to do with the parties. It is an official election run by the state for its own purposes, in order for it to decide who goes on the ballot in the general election. The parties are free to run their own internal processes if they like, to decide whom if anyone they should endorse.
Huh? Why on earth wouldn’t they be? What possible objection could there be?
Again, that is simply not true. You are totally off the wall here. The jungle primary has no connection whatsoever with any political party or its internal processes. On the contrary, it eliminates parties from the electoral process and returns them to what they should be, private clubs that endorse candidates, or don’t, as they like.
That’s right. They’re just like the first round of Louisiana elections, except that nobody can win in the first round. Even if someone gets a majority in the primary they must still face a run-off, whereas in LA if someone wins the first round the run-off is cancelled.
Sure they are. There’s nothing in the definition of “primary election” that requires the involvement of parties. That’s just how most states happen to do it; some states choose not to, that’s all.
Why should parties have a say in the matter, and on what grounds should courts not accept it?
No, I will not cut you a break, because you’re being completely insane and ignorant. Nothing you write makes any sense at all. Jungle primaries are not party primaries. They have nothing to with parties. So the state can run them however it likes. States can’t dictate to political parties how to run their internal affairs, including how to nominate candidates for office. They can’t order them to have primaries, they can’t tell them how to organize their conventions or whatever they have, they can’t tell them anything. But they don’t have to offer their services to run the parties’ nomination processes for them.
However, cast your mind back to the brief experiment California ran with “blanket party primaries”, where everyone ran together in the primary, and the top vote getter from each party was automatically that party’s candidate in the general election. That the supreme court said was unconstitutional, because the state was dictating to the parties whom they must endorse. That’s why CA stopped doing it and switched to the current system which cuts the parties out altogether.
Ooooh. I skipped past this the first time. This is AWESOME!!!!
Hmmmm … no law preventing AN ALIEN from appearing on the ballot for Presidency in the general election …
… … …
I’m still laughing. … …
You have taken reductio ad absurdum to a whole new level!
That’s right. Those states (a majority of states, if I understand it correctly) have no such law. There’s nothing funny about it. They could choose to have such a law, but they’ve chosen not to. Who the hell are you to tell them they have to? Where in the constitution is that written?
I can run for office?
Oh, wait — I’m an intelligent life form; no way I’d do that.
Milhouse is making perfect sense.
This decision did kick can down the road, but it’s a kick that can be applied to the general election as well. The question “Is Trump disqualified from office-holding/is he an insurrectionist?” doesn’t have to be answered unless he wins the election. The Constitution bars insurrectionists from office, it does not bar them from ballots. The people have a right to vote for their preferred candidates, so long as those candidates meet the qualifications for office. There are no facts in evidence (a conviction for insurrection) that would currently disqualify Trump from the office. The idea that his actions (or inactions – Trump is forever damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t) disqualify him from office is a legal theory, yet to be tested in a court of law by way of a trial. Insurrection is a crime, and “opinion” is insufficient to invoke the legal consequences for any criminal action.
Taking your points out of order.
If Trump were an insurrectionist no trial would be necessary, because disqualification from office is not a criminal penalty. A state can decide that only eligible people can go on the ballot, and in that case it has to decide who is eligible. If it says Trump’s ineligible and should be left off, the onus would be on him to ask a court for a mandamus ordering the state to put him back on.
Next, even if Trump were an insurrectionist (he isn’t), he’d still be eligible for at least two reasons: (1) Insurrectionists are only barred from the offices listed, and the presidency isn’t one of them. (2) He would be covered by the amnesty of 1872. It applies to “all persons whomsoever” with certain exceptions; he is a person whomsoever and he is not one of the exceptions, so it applies to him whether he needs it or not.
Could a 20 year old be on the ballot as a primary candidate for president?
In a state with no law against it, and the party submits his name to be on the ballot? Sure, why on earth wouldn’t he be?
A primary is an internal party process. If the party wants him on the ballot, how is it the state’s business to say no? Of course if the state is kindly volunteering to run the party’s primary for it, and it makes a law saying we’ll only allow eligible candidates, the party has the choice of either going along or declining the state’s services and running its own primary or other nomination process. But it’s not for a court to make such a decision.
“A primary is an internal party process.”
That’s a lie–some guy named Millhouse who knows everything said this–
“Sure they are. There’s nothing in the definition of “primary election” that requires the involvement of parties. ”
So you’re just lying about that.
No, Azathoth, it is the plain and obvious truth. You are lying here.
“No, Azathoth, it is the plain and obvious truth. You are lying here.”
Two quotes from you, and I’M lying?
Two quotes where you say two opposing things in the same response thread.
and I’m lying………..sure.
Seems the court just punted. They may keep Trump off the general election ballot, but they can’t keep his electors off. So he doesn’t win the vote but his electors do. ( At least that’s the way it works in my state. )
They could keep his electors off. They just said this is not the time to make that decision. They can’t make that decision now, because there is no case or controversy before them.
They don’t want Trump disqualified too soon. They want to wait until just before the ballots are to be printed to disqualify him so he doesn’t have a lot of time to appeal to the SCOTUS. They then print the ballots without Trump’s name on them and then if and when they lose at SCOTUS declare it too be to late to print new ballots.
Three words. Write in Candidate. Sure, they can try and leave his name off the ballot as a check box ☑︎ candidate but they can’t stop the people from writing his name in as their choice. A big DONALD J. TRUMP in capital letters written neatly in the spot indicated for write in candidates. And then election officials will be forced by law to count all those TRUMP votes and officially report the number to their respective state election offices.
Since when does legality apply to elections in this country?
The question would be does he lose or gain votes as a write in candidate. I could see there being enough anger from the electorate that Trump was disqualified in such a way that he could get extra votes that he would not received under normal circumstances so this could help him but generally most people don’t vote for a candidate who is not on the ballot so he could lose votes there and I would not be surprised if the state election officials decided to play games and found excuses to void write in votes for Trump ( for example someone writes in Trump’s name and forgets to capitalize it or because of poor handwriting it’s difficult to read). In a close race it might only take a small percentage change to change the result in an individual state.
Because we all know how well write-in campaigns usually work… So what you’re saying is that they should be able to cheat AGAIN and nothing should come of it.
You can’t write in presidential candidates, because the election is really for electors, and there isn’t a slate of people seeking to be electors who are pledged to him. If you write in “36 electors (or however many your state gets) for Donald Trump”, that leaves the state asking “which 36?”.
Jack Smith will soon amend his complaint to include a charge of insurrection against Trump. The plan now is to wait until after the primaries to make a nationwide attempt to bar Trump from the general election ballot. Election interference on steroids.
I wonder, since Trump was acquitted of such a charge in his second impeachment, would that be considered double jeopardy? Especially since both proceedings would be at the federal level and overseen by federal judges.
The Constitution says even a person convicted in the Senate can still be tried criminally for the same offense that resulted in removal from office. Some will argue that this means double jeopardy applies in any other situation, but the Constitution is actually silent on the matter.
I believe the text presents the most extreme situation, meant as a guide (as the 2nd Amendment’s militia clause is merely an example of the value of the right to arms, and not a limitation on the right). If conviction in the Senate doesn’t protect from double-jeopardy, then why should any other outcome?
People think the Fifth Amendment prevents retrial after a finding of “not guilty,” but that’s not what it says. It says “…(no) person (shall) be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy…” A person found “not guilty” has been put in jeopardy, but so has a person convicted. If “jeopardy” in the Senate doesn’t eliminate criminal liability after a conviction, why should it when the Senate doesn’t convict?
Also, a reading of the Constitution that relieves the office-holder of criminal liability if the Senate fails to convict presents opportunities for abuse. For instance, if the Republicans attempt to impeach Biden, the Dems can help them for the express purpose of allowing the Dems in the Senate to indemnify Biden against criminal liability by not convicting him. Other ways of gaming this can easily be imagined. Does anyone here think the authors of the Constitution missed this possibility? Or should the Constitution be read in a way that such gaming is prevented?
The Constitution says a president can be tried criminally after being impeached and removed from office. This strongly suggests that a sitting president can’t be tried while in office. This makes sense, as it would prevent malicious prosecution of a president and/or disruption of his administration over possibly minor offenses. OTOH, the process of impeachment and removal from office allows Congress to determine if a president’s criminality is of sufficient magnitude that he should be removed from office in order to protect the Republic and the integrity of the office. Impeachment and removal from office is a political process with political consequences. It is not a substitute for a judicial process (that is able to impose criminal penalties). This is why the Constitution also says that a president (who seems to have already been punished by impeachment and removal from office) may still be tried criminally – “double jeopardy” does not apply. (Double jeopardy only applies to judicial processes, and impeachment is not a judicial process. There is no conflict here with the 5th Amendment.)
The question doesn’t even begin.
1. The senate trial was not a judicial proceeding at all, it was a political proceeding.
2. Even if it were a trial, he was never in jeopardy of “life or limb”. That phrase is not taken literally; it refers to any criminal penalty. But forfeiture of office is not a criminal penalty of any kind, so it does not count as “life or limb”, even metaphorically.
Notwithstanding Milhouse’s wall of words posts would someone please explain to me how the “insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment” even applies to Trump? I ask because as far as I know Trump has never been charged with “insurrection against the United States” nor has he ever been convicted of such a charge. So despite the howls from the lunatic left I can’t see how the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment applies to Trump in any way.
Not only was trump not convicted of such a charge, he was in fact acquitted during his second impeachment trial. I’d like to thank Nancy Pelosi for clearing the way for Trump to claim innocence on such a charge.
That is not a valid objection, because the disqualification clause does not require that a person has charged, let alone convicted. The clause says anyone who participated in an insurrection after having taken an oath not to is disqualified from certain offices. That includes people whom the president chose not to charge, and probably even people whom the president pardoned. Only congress can remove this disability.
However it doesn’t apply to Trump for at least four separate reasons:
1. The Capitol riot was not an insurrection.
2. Trump did not participate in it.
3. The presidency is not one of the offices from which insurrectionists are disqualified.
4. The amnesty of 1872 applies to “all persons whomsover”, with a list of exceptions that doesn’t include Trump. So even if he were right now sitting in a cell for the crime of insurrection he’d still be eligible, not just for president but even for congress.
In our legal systems, you prove things by legal findings. A person is guilty of a crime when they’re convicted, not when they’re accused.
Interesting, and somewhat confusing. The correct outcome would have been the court saying “this person is not guilty of insurrection and in fact was acquitted of such in a legal proceeding, this case should not even be heard and you shall not bring such a case again.”
A court wouldn’t say that because Trump was not “acquitted…in a legal proceeding.” Impeachment and removal from office is a political solution to an office-holder whose actions have placed the Republic and the integrity of his office into jeopardy. It is not a judicial process. It has many of the same trappings, but they are not the same. Even a conviction in the Senate is not legal proof of guilt for a crime. This is why a president removed from office (i.e., convicted by the Senate) can be tried in a court of law for the same offense that resulted in the removal (and can’t be sent directly to prison), and why “double jeopardy” does not apply.
You actually have to read the words in front of you. Notice that I did not call the impeachment trial a judicial process, I called it a legal proceeding and that’s what it is, and during that proceeding he was in fact acquitted. So, for them to apply the 14th amendment strategy, first they would need a conviction to act as a legal finding of guilt for insurrection. To this point, the only legal proceeding that has examined the question has found the opposite, lack of guilt.
No, the correct outcome was this decision. There is no case or controversy before the court, so it can’t decide whether he is disqualified from the presidency. (Hint: he isn’t.)
The 14th Amendment did NOT supersede the eligibility clause. The insurrectiony words are (were) directed toward Confederates to prevent them from holding office ranging from Senator to dog catcher. But not president or vice president.
Read the words and never trust what judges tell you they mean. Just take a look at the “judge” presiding over the Trump “fraud trial” in NYC and that’s exactly the type that sits on high courts in blue states.
I’ve seen people argue, “Why would the 14th’s framers want to exclude someone from all offices except the two highest? It makes no sense, so that must not be what they meant.”
But it does make sense. They were worried that a rebel state, district, town, etc. would elect a rebel to office, because the voters are rebels too, and they want a rebel to represent them. But the majority of the country did not want such people to be in office, so they amended the constitution to prevent it. If the people of Atlanta wanted a rebel to represent them, the rest of the country would tell them “No, you can’t have that”.
But the president and vice president are elected by the whole nation. If the people as a whole decide they want a rebel to be president, why should they not be allowed to have him?
This isn’t complicated, folks. A Party can nominate anyone or anything they want to run for President. If who or whatever is ineligible for office it/he/you know, the thing will not appear on the ballot and the party just wasted their time. If it’s not restricted by the state to be placed on the ballot and wins it will not be sworn in and a new election held. If there is no restriction in law then whatever holds office. I believe there is a town that elected a rabbit or goat for Mayor.
Sadly, that rabbit or goat might well have been a better choice than most politicians.