California Bill Will Take President Trump Off the Ballot in 2020

[DCPatriot]

I would LOVE to see California...or any state, try this.

The State's total Electoral College vote will be deemed null and void.

Make my day!   

[Smokin Joe]

I would LOVE to see California...or any state, try this.

The State's total Electoral College vote will be deemed null and void.

Make my day!   

Essentialy, if we won't do it the way the Communists want, they'll take their ball and go home. No problemo! Can the other States kick them out and declare them territories?

[sneakypete]

Essentialy, if we won't do it the way the Communists want, they'll take their ball and go home. No problemo! Can the other States kick them out and declare them territories?

@Smokin Joe

The REAL problem with this,unless you are Di-Fi or her husband and get a percentage of the take,is that there is NOTHING China would love more than to see the left coast break free from America and become open for colonization as soon as their money runs out. Which would basically be the day after they are set free. China needs those ports,as well as a base in America for them to operate from.

[Idiot]

California Bill Will Take President Trump Off the Ballot in 2020
By
S.Noble -
May 3, 2019
 

California lawmakers plan to pass a bill taking Donald Trump off the ballot in 2020. They passed the same bill two years ago and other liberal states are doing the same although it’s obviously unconstitutional.

It is very possible Governor Gavin Newsom will sign it whereas former Governor Jerry Brown would not. He said he would “evaluate” the bill based on its “own merits.”

He should base it on the rule of law, the Constitution.

https://www.independentsentinel.com/california-bill-will-take-president-trump-off-the-ballot-in-2020/

GREAT!  If they don't want to participate in Federal elections then cut off ALL Federal funding!

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

The REAL problem with this,unless you are Di-Fi or her husband and get a percentage of the take,is that there is NOTHING China would love more than to see the left coast break free from America and become open for colonization as soon as their money runs out. Which would basically be the day after they are set free. China needs those ports,as well as a base in America for them to operate from.

Yep. They were after the naval shipyard at Long Beach when the Clintons were in office. One of the benefits of calling them Territories is that the US still retains sovereignty, rather than just kicking them to the curb. But, when the time comes, I'd rather fight the Liberals (also Communists) than the Chinese.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

While I'm all about states rights, this is exclusively a Federal issue. CA has no jurisdiction.

Not only is this targeted + selective, its not based on principle but rather about hurting Trump. It also opens the door to poll tax kind of gimmicks to keep oppo candidates off the ballot.

Actually, I think it is mostly a state issue.  The only thing the Constitution says about the selection of Presidential Electors is in Article II:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

There doesn't even have to be voting by citizens in the state for the electors.  A state could pass a law stating that the legislature itself will choose the Presidential electors when it is time for a President election.  In fact, for the first couple elections, most state legislatures did choose electors directly.  So, a state like California could constitutional rig future elections directly simply by stating that the state legislature will choose a slate of electors.  No voting at all.

Personally, I think that if a state is permitted to do that, then it can set whatever additional requirements it wants as long as it doesn't violate some other provision of the Constitution.  I don't like that result...but I think it is Constitutional.  That is, unless there is some specific federal law somewhere that this would violate.  But I'm not aware of any.

That being said, I'd expect the Supreme Court to say it is unconstitutional anyway simply because they wouldn't like the result, and the chaos that could result if states started actually taking Article II seriously.

[libertybele]

Actually, I think it is mostly a state issue.  The only thing the Constitution says about the selection of Presidential Electors is in Article II:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

There doesn't even have to be voting by citizens in the state for the electors.  A state could pass a law stating that the legislature itself will choose the Presidential electors when it is time for a President election.  In fact, for the first couple elections, most state legislatures did choose electors directly.  So, a state like California could constitutional rig future elections directly simply by stating that the state legislature will choose a slate of electors.  No voting at all.

Personally, I think that if a state is permitted to do that, then it can set whatever additional requirements it wants as long as it doesn't violate some other provision of the Constitution.  I don't like that result...but I think it is Constitutional.  That is, unless there is some specific federal law somewhere that this would violate.  But I'm not aware of any.

That being said, I'd expect the Supreme Court to say it is unconstitutional anyway simply because they wouldn't like the result, and the chaos that could result if states started actually taking Article II seriously.

Amendment XII - https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xii

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Amendment XII - https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xii

Honestly, the Twelth Amendment has nothing to do with my point.

My point address how electors are chosen within each state.

The 12th Amendment addresses how the electors themselves actually vote.

[Free Vulcan]

Actually, I think it is mostly a state issue.  The only thing the Constitution says about the selection of Presidential Electors is in Article II:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

There doesn't even have to be voting by citizens in the state for the electors.  A state could pass a law stating that the legislature itself will choose the Presidential electors when it is time for a President election.  In fact, for the first couple elections, most state legislatures did choose electors directly.  So, a state like California could constitutional rig future elections directly simply by stating that the state legislature will choose a slate of electors.  No voting at all.

Personally, I think that if a state is permitted to do that, then it can set whatever additional requirements it wants as long as it doesn't violate some other provision of the Constitution.  I don't like that result...but I think it is Constitutional.  That is, unless there is some specific federal law somewhere that this would violate.  But I'm not aware of any.

That being said, I'd expect the Supreme Court to say it is unconstitutional anyway simply because they wouldn't like the result, and the chaos that could result if states started actually taking Article II seriously.

It would boil down to whether the States have the right to tack on extra qualifications and raise the minimum standard of eligibility. I'm not sure they can.

[ABX]

It wasn't long ago, many here were cheering or hoping for various Secretaries of State to block Obama from the ballot in their respective States.

Some may not like it, but the Constitution give States the power to oversee how elections are conducted, including how to qualify for the ballot.

Not everyone who wants to run for president can get on every ballot across the country. Every State has different qualifications.

Some States make it so difficult with such a high threshold of qualification, that only the two major party candidates can meet that threshold. Other States make it so easy, you have candidates like Vermin Supreme and Deez Nuts on the ballot.

Or do we only apply Federalism when it suits our whims? 

[ABX]

It would boil down to whether the States have the right to tack on extra qualifications and raise the minimum standard of eligibility. I'm not sure they can.

Many States do it every legislative cycle. Here in Texas, they are currently making a move to make it more difficult for Libertarians and other third party candidates to qualify, even though (and because) they did so well in the last election they would normally have an automatic qualification in the next cycle.

[DCPatriot]

It wasn't long ago, many here were cheering or hoping for various Secretaries of State to block Obama from the ballot in their respective States.

Some may not like it, but the Constitution give States the power to oversee how elections are conducted, including how to qualify for the ballot.

Not everyone who wants to run for president can get on every ballot across the country. Every State has different qualifications.

Some States make it so difficult with such a high threshold of qualification, that only the two major party candidates can meet that threshold. Other States make it so easy, you have candidates like Vermin Supreme and Deez Nuts on the ballot.

Or do we only apply Federalism when it suits our whims?

That totally disingenuous, @ABX

It's NOT the States that get to say who's eligible to be on their ballot.  The CONSTITUTION sets the criteria to run for the office.

If they play games with their electoral votes...render them ALL null and void.  And then place the appropriate people under arrest for sedition.

[Free Vulcan]

It wasn't long ago, many here were cheering or hoping for various Secretaries of State to block Obama from the ballot in their respective States.

Some may not like it, but the Constitution give States the power to oversee how elections are conducted, including how to qualify for the ballot.

Not everyone who wants to run for president can get on every ballot across the country. Every State has different qualifications.

Some States make it so difficult with such a high threshold of qualification, that only the two major party candidates can meet that threshold. Other States make it so easy, you have candidates like Vermin Supreme and Deez Nuts on the ballot.

Or do we only apply Federalism when it suits our whims?

Conversely, you could go so far the other direction that it starts getting used for political assassination, like what is being attempted here against Trump. Or worse, rigging it so that the minority party candidate couldn't get on the ballot.

I get, even if I don't always agree, with stricter requirements for things such as signatures, party representation, or financial requirements and the like that apply to all, but not things like this that are obviously targeted to one person.

If you open that door, where does it end?

[dfwgator]

I do not want to see any state break from the union.  California should be faced with no federal funds, and a shutdown of all services that are in any way controlled by federal employees, i.e. all airports, all ports of call, all trains crossing into CA from other states, and that shut down kept in place until such time CA revokes all laws they passed in direct violation or at odds with USA laws.

I also believe the governor should be removed from office as well as the state congress if they fail to comply.

The time has come to stand up to states that violate federal laws.

I think we need to consolidate.  Why should the Northeast get so many States,  why is Rhode Island even a State?  They should just combine all the New England states into Massachusetts.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It would boil down to whether the States have the right to tack on extra qualifications and raise the minimum standard of eligibility. I'm not sure they can.

Well...they're not changing the qualifications for President.  They're just changing how their state's electors will vote.  To put it differently, a state could simply eliminate the popular vote within the state for the choosing of electors, and have the legislature do it.  And then legislators could say "I'm not voting for anyone unless they release their tax return", and nobody could challenge that.  All that being said, I do think the Supreme Court would shoot it down. 

[ABX]

That totally disingenuous, @ABX

It's NOT the States that get to say who's eligible to be on their ballot.  The CONSTITUTION sets the criteria to run for the office.

If they play games with their electoral votes...render them ALL null and void.  And then place the appropriate people under arrest for sedition.

You are confusing eligibility to hold the office with eligibility to be on any specific ballot. The Constitution give the states the mandate over the latter.

Not every person in every state qualifies to be on the ballot just because they file. Otherwise would have had 600+ choices the past election.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It's NOT the States that get to say who's eligible to be on their ballot.  The CONSTITUTION sets the criteria to run for the office.

Being on the ballot and being legally eligible to hold office are not the same thing.  At least, we better hope they aren't.  Because there are probably 100 million or so of us eligible to run for office.  And if we all could demand a position on the ballot as a matter of constitutional right, elections would become impossible.

You're always free to write in anyone you choose.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You are confusing eligibility to hold the office with eligibility to be on any specific ballot. The Constitution give the states the mandate over the latter.

Not every person in every state qualifies to be on the ballot just because they file. Otherwise would have had 600+ choices the past election.

It seems we temporarily have a hive mind....

[Free Vulcan]

Well...they're not changing the qualifications for President.  They're just changing how their state's electors will vote.  To put it differently, a state could simply eliminate the popular vote within the state for the choosing of electors, and have the legislature do it.  And then legislators could say "I'm not voting for anyone unless they release their tax return", and nobody could challenge that.  All that being said, I do think the Supreme Court would shoot it down.

True, but this looks to be an eligibility just to get on the ballot issue. If you let states jack around too much with that, it could be very much weaponized, like CA is trying to do here.

[Wingnut]

Who is "California Bill"? 

[Free Vulcan]

Who is "California Bill"?

I think he's that old hippie that lives in a van down by the river.

[EdJames]

Who is "California Bill"?

He's that jackwagon that sells surfer shirts on TV.

[Wingnut]

I think he's that old hippie that lives in a van down by the river.

He's that jackwagon that sells surfer shirts on TV.

I thought so.  Just another liberal hippie sh*t head.

[Victoria33]

@libertybele

You know I taught Texas Election Law so I know about other states' election laws when it comes to putting names on their ballot.  Every state, individually, determines on their own, what criteria they will use to put names on their ballot.  There are some states that will only put a name on the ballot if the candidate gets a set amount of signatures from voters - there is no other option.  What happens is, the candidate's workers get those names.  If the candidate does not get the required amount, the name does not go on the ballot.

It appears this is what is happening - these states are changing their law in order to limit the option to get the name on the ballot, to voter signatures ONLY- leaving no other option for the candidate to get his/her name on there.  The main point here is each state can determine what criteria they want to use for putting a name on the ballot.

[DCPatriot]

You are confusing eligibility to hold the office with eligibility to be on any specific ballot. The Constitution give the states the mandate over the latter.

Not every person in every state qualifies to be on the ballot just because they file. Otherwise would have had 600+ choices the past election.

My point was that Obama was challenged on his eligibility.  Using the Constitution in their argument.

My other point is that any state that dicks around with the Electoral College, in an attempt to keep a name off the Presidential Ballot shall forfeit their entire EC vote total.