The Colorado trial court hearing the challenge to Trump’s qualifications scheduled a five-day hearing to begin October 30 to adjudicate the claim. Does such a hearing pass scrutiny under the Anderson-Burdick balancing test?
I’ve been surprised at how little I’ve… Continue reading
It’s hard not to read the brief in Colorado and wonder how in the world these claims are going to proceed in a state trial court.
Here’s one statement that’s contrary to a hundred years of state practice, and offered… Continue reading
After witnessing a non-presidential election cycle with $154 million earmarked for election litigation to the major political parties, I expected to see continuing climbing figures. Not so fast. The 6-month figures are in, and a mere (?) $22.6 million was … Continue reading
Rick H. linked to the complaint filed in Minnesota challenging Donald Trump’s eligibility. Setting aside the ripeness issues present in this challenge (like so many already filed), I wanted to dig into some of the history in Minnesota. There’s a… Continue reading
If my blogging on this topic has a sense of déjà vu, my apologies. But we are in an intractable cycle of litigation on Section 3 that has a low likelihood of going anyplace. I think some cases will get… Continue reading
Ned and Rick H. have done an impressive job collecting some of the commentary over the last couple of weeks of challenges being filed, or anticipated to be filed, about Donald Trump and his eligibility under Section 3 of the… Continue reading
In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment (including its Section 3) was adopted, presidential elections looked something like this: Political parties gathered together in a convention to nominate candidates for president and vice president. State parties would then choose presidential electors… Continue reading
Rick H. links to a forthcoming article by Professors Michael Stokes Paulsen and Will Baude on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and specifically the application of that section to former president Donald Trump. I am sure the paper will… Continue reading
Washington Post, January 5, 2016:
“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,” Trump said when asked… Continue reading
This is the first in a few posts looking at litigation comparable to the issues in Moore v. Harper to see if any lessons can be learned from those areas. I started with the Takings Clause here. I’ll look… Continue reading
This is the first in a few posts looking at litigation comparable to the issues in Moore v. Harper to see if any lessons can be learned from those areas. I’ll start with the Takings Clause.
Lock-stepping is the sometimes-derided practice of construing a state constitution in “lock step” with the federal constitution. Derided, because the state constitution may well have an independent meaning rather than a meaning designed to mirror the federal constitution. The practice… Continue reading