Colorado

[Jim at Gentex]

Just a side note...

Assuming SCOTUS doesn't overturn this asinine lower court decision, which they almost certainly will, people can and should use the write-in feature that is available on every ballot to vote for whomever they wish, regardless of whether that person's name is on the ballot.

Now I am hoping Trump wins the Colorado primary by write-in, just to show these politically motivated so-called 'judges' that they need to learn to stay in their lane and stop using their judicial authority to affect the outcome of elections when there is a candidate they don't like.

I am also hoping the people of Colorado see what is happening right under their noses and start holding their elected officials accountable. 

[ghuns]

In the current Colorado polls, Biden wins a head to head with Trump. But Biden loses a head to head with RFK.

Not sure the Dem party bigwigs will want this ruling to stand.

[Del.]

After this I'm voting for Trump. No citizen has ever faced what he is facing.

[beej]

Just a side note...

Assuming SCOTUS doesn't overturn this asinine lower court decision, which they almost certainly will, people can and should use the write-in feature that is available on every ballot to vote for whomever they wish, regardless of whether that person's name is on the ballot.

Now I am hoping Trump wins the Colorado primary by write-in, just to show these politically motivated so-called 'judges' that they need to learn to stay in their lane and stop using their judicial authority to affect the outcome of elections when there is a candidate they don't like.

I am also hoping the people of Colorado see what is happening right under their noses and start holding their elected officials accountable. 

in the ruling they said any write-in votes for trump would be considered non-votes.

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-plan-write-trump-colorado-one-major-problem-1854021

[beej]

If something like this happened in a Red State, California would issue a travel restriction. the NFL and MLB would pull games. Companies would remove their headquarters. University students would block streets. and the media would use the word unprecedented between syllables.

[beej]

I wonder if states could pass a law that says no one over the age of 80 at the time of the primary election can be on the ballot. That should be legal since states have the right to say who qualifies for the primary ballot and who doesn't.

[JParis]

I wonder if states could pass a law that says no one over the age of 80 at the time of the primary election can be on the ballot. That should be legal since states have the right to say who qualifies for the primary ballot and who doesn't.

No, the requirements to be eligible for President are defined in Article 1, Section 2,

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution imposes only three eligibility requirements on persons serving as president, based on the officeholder's age, time of residency in the U.S., and citizenship status:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
These requirements have been modified twice. Under the 12th Amendment, the same three qualifications were applied to the vice president of the United States. The 22nd Amendment limited office holders to two terms as president.

[Del.]

Due process is dead.

[beej]

No, the requirements to be eligible for President are defined in Article 1, Section 2,

those are the qualifications for the office of the US. But states have the right to declare who is eligible for the primaries.

from Ballotpedia, which I recognize is not an official government site:
In order to get on the ballot, a candidate for president of the United States must meet a variety of complex, state-specific filing requirements and deadlines. These regulations, known as ballot access laws, determine whether a candidate or party will appear on an election ballot. These laws are set at the state level. A presidential candidate must prepare to meet ballot access requirements well in advance of primaries, caucuses, and the general election.

[JParis]

from Ballotpedia, which I recognize is not an official government site:
In order to get on the ballot, a candidate for president of the United States must meet a variety of complex, state-specific filing requirements and deadlines. These regulations, known as ballot access laws, determine whether a candidate or party will appear on an election ballot. These laws are set at the state level. A presidential candidate must prepare to meet ballot access requirements well in advance of primaries, caucuses, and the general election.

I could be wrong but I believe that ballot access refers only to filing your candidacy and supplying the requisite fee and if required, signatures.

State office elections of course are their own set of rules.
 

[beej]

I could be wrong but I believe that ballot access refers only to filing your candidacy and supplying the requisite fee and if required, signatures.

State office elections of course are their own set of rules.
 

you are probably right, but I'm pretty sure that rule of law is a ancient relic that no longer applies to today's standards.

[Del.]

Democrats would fuck up an anvil.

[YoDoug]

#NeverTrumpers in MN have been scheming to do the same thing here. Stupid Establishment R's are so blinded that they don't realize playing dirty tricks to stop voters from the candidate they want will only ensure complete Dem rule for decades.

[Jim at Gentex]

in the ruling they said any write-in votes for trump would be considered non-votes.

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-plan-write-trump-colorado-one-major-problem-1854021

Hmmmm...I didn't see that.

Dems are always screaming about disenfranchising voters, until they do it, then it's ok...

I'm sure an appeal to SCOTUS is already in the works, so it might be a moot point anyway.

[gcode]

Dems are always screaming about disenfranchising Democratic voters,

fissed for accuracy