The Oregon Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear a bid to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban,” saying it’s waiting for the US Supreme Court to rule on the issue.

The ruling comes after Colorado and Maine kicked Trump off the ballot, after judges and officials determined that his role in the January 6 insurrection renders him ineligible for office. However, those decisions have been paused to allow for appeals.

Trump has prevailed in other states, where courts dismissed lawsuits on procedural grounds and never grappled with the questions about January 6. He has beaten back challenges in Minnesota, Michigan, and Arizona – and California’s top election official recently decided to keep him on the ballot there as well.

The Oregon court did not rule on the merits of the challenge, specifically citing the ongoing litigation at the US Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments in the Colorado case on February 8.

  • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Does anyone, that’s actually somewhat informed, care about this?

    He’ll only ever be removed from states that he never would’ve won, right? Like, granted it’s noteworthy, but who cares if he’s removed from the ballot in every blue state? It would make zero difference to the outcome.

    It feels like when there were 20,000 Democrats running for president, confusing voters, while every one paying attention said from the beginning it would obviously be between, Biden or Bernie, and Trump.

    • feannag
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      I suppose there’s still a chance (however so slight) that the SCOTUS decision makes Trump ineligible for federal office, which would then apply to all states.

    • Phegan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      Maine and Colorado removed him from the primary ballot, these are states and delegates he can not win. So blue states actually matter because if he doesn’t win the nomination, he won’t be the Republican candidate. If enough states do it, it’s possible that another candidate could slide in.

      • restingboredface@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m concerned too that if another more “moderate” candidate is placed on the gop side in enough states, people lukewarm on Biden could be persuaded to vote red when they would have voted for Biden in a Trump matchup. I’m sure that there are political types doing this math. I’m not sure Biden has the pull to get the win.

        • Phegan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          When my options are mediocre lib, slightly fascist con and ultra fascist con, I am comfortable with taking the risk with the slightly fascist con to never risk the ultra fascist con winning.

    • Stern@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      He’ll only ever be removed from states that he never would’ve won, right?

      Maine splits their electoral votes unlike most states. In 2020 Trump won one electoral vote there. Not enough to swing the election by any means tho.

    • TotesIllegit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Even if he’s only removed from the ballots in blue states, it’ll have an effect on an downballot elections in those states. The base of the Republican party is still very deep into trumpism; and they’re more likely to vote at all if their guy is on the ballot. If he’s not, they may refuse to participate at all, which could potentially swing local races or otherwise make them competitive rather than safe positions.

      On the national scale, if a congressional district is already competitive and those otherwise reliable Republican voters don’t show up, it could give the democratic nominees for those districts an edge- assuming “keep Trump from getting back into the White House” isn’t the only motivation energizing the Democratic party’s base.

      The Republican party’s majority was already thin after the midterms, and the gap has been narrowing due to party infighting; on top of that, they barely won back the house during a midterm election without securing the Senate during the election cycle that is most advantageous to the minority party (since a ton of voters only vote during presidential elections).

      The more states that ban Trump from the ballot, the more likely it is that the discouragement felt by the Republican party’s base- particularly the Trumpist faction- leads to a number of them no longer feeling energized to vote, which may lead to progressive and centrist Democratic wins in competitive districts up and down the ballots, which may affect local or state politics enough to affect policy in a way that less more toward the progressive side of things- again, provided that the Democratic party doesn’t rely too heavily on “we’re not Trumpists” and find themselves going against Haley instead of Trump without a cohesive plan.

      Tl;dr: Trump missing from the ballot in only blue states could still significantly affect downballot elections and initiatives, and give the Democratic party an edge in their efforts to take back the house and solidify their hold on the Senate- provided the Dems work on their messaging, energize their base, and win over independents.

    • SlothMama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Has a presidential candidate ever been removed from the ballot at the State level before historically?