Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2024 U.S. Election of President and Vice President

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by DOR View Post
    This election is between those who believe in democracy, the Constitution, a peaceful transfer of power, and the rule of law; and the MAGA Mob.
    A or B, that's it.
    There is no gray area, and no middle ground.
    No no, it's "both sides".

    Hey, what this from Illinois....?

    Trump Omits Customary Illinois Pledge To Not Overthrow Government: Report

    Former President Donald Trump reportedly submitted election paperwork in the state of Illinois this week without signing the customary “loyalty pledge,” a Red Scare relic wherein candidates vow not to “advocate the overthrow of the government.”

    The Chicago Sun-Times andWBEZ reported the omission on Saturday, three years to the day after Trump supporters mobbed the U.S. Capitol in a misguided attempt to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s presidential victory.

    Trump’s various efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election currently threaten to send him to federal prison as he faces multiple special-counsel-led trials.

    It has also led voters in several states, including Illinois, to try to prevent his name from being on primary ballots this year.

    The Chicago outlets noted that Trump had signed the pledge during both his 2016 and 2020 campaigns, as did Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Biden, who has also reportedly signed this year. Republican presidential hopeful Ron DeSantis also reportedly signed the pledge.

    Illinois lawmakers have attempted to scrap the “loyalty pledge” entirely since its 1950s inception, in the era Sen. Joe McCarthy led a heated charge against supposedly malicious communist activity around the United States during the Cold War.

    Other states implemented loyalty oaths, as well. But federal courts have largely declared them unconstitutional.

    Since Illinois’ oath is easy to sign and optional, it has simply become customary for presidential hopefuls, according to The Chicago Sun-Times and WBEZ.

    Trump’s apparent failure to promise he won’t overthrow the government if he wins a second term by not signing the oath sets off alarm bells.

    The full text of Illinois’ oath affirms that the candidate is not a communist or a member of any communist groups and that they “do not directly or indirectly teach or advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States or of this State or any unlawful change in the form of the governments thereof by force or any unlawful means.”
    ________

    Not sure why he didn't sign it....It's not like he abided by it in 2021 and he sure as shit won't abide by it in the future. What's he got to lose by signing?

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    This election is between those who believe in democracy, the Constitution, a peaceful transfer of power, and the rule of law; and the MAGA Mob.
    A or B, that's it.
    There is no gray area, and no middle ground.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    As predicted - tit for tat. Haven't confirmed it yet via media channels but another forum I'm on is saying at least two Republican States are talking about removing Biden from the ballot sheet because ... why not?
    Last edited by Monash; 07 Jan 24,, 22:24.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Can Congress overturn presidential election results? Here are changes since Jan. 6, 2021

    WASHINGTON — Three years ago, the nation’s Capitol underwent a marathon day that disrupted a centuries-old tradition of peaceful transitions of power in the United States.

    Hundreds of supporters of former President Donald Trump broke into the U.S. Capitol building as Congress convened to help formalize the results of the 2020 presidential election, interrupting the proceedings for hours even as some Republican lawmakers moved to reject the election results in key swing states.

    The riot shook Congress. A bipartisan group of lawmakers crafted legislation intended to clarify the electoral count process that had created such uncertainty following the 2020 election.

    As the country heads into another election year that will likely have Trump on the general election ballot, experts say those changes significantly reduced the likelihood that valid election results could be overturned by Congress or the Vice President – but warned there are still vulnerabilities at the state and local level that could be exploited.

    “It is much better than it was, it was totally arcane,” said Rebecca Green, an election law professor at the College of William and Mary. “This reform really does provide a lot of important clarification and takes away some of the risks that we saw unfold on Jan. 6.”

    Game-changing legislation
    In the immediate wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, lawmakers of both parties were rattled. Many condemned the violence and moved to clarify the objection process to stop the assault from happening again.

    A bill to change vague and vulnerable wording in the 19th-century Electoral Count Act – supported by dozens of members of both parties – was included in a year-end spending bill signed by President Joe Biden in December 2022.

    The law made some significant changes. It:
    • Clarified that the vice president’s role is ceremonial and does not include the power to accept or reject electors
    • Designates one official in each state to submit the state’s slate of electors, rather than leaving the possibility of multiple slates being submitted to Congress, and requires Congress to accept only that slate
    • Created a process of expedited court review of electoral challenges from presidential candidates
    • Raised the threshold to object to a state’s election results from one senator and one representative to one-fifth of both the House and the Senate
    These changes significantly decrease the risk of Congress overturning valid election results, experts said, by preventing dueling slates of electors and requiring more consensus to mount an objection.

    “The idea is that only serious objections would be entertained,” Green said. “The universe of possible problems is much, much smaller with this process.”


    Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi preside over the certification of Electoral College votes at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.


    New risks and pressure
    Despite these changes, the experts who spoke with USA TODAY said valid election results could still be overturned.

    “There are grave risks,” said Matthew Seligman, a legal scholar at Stanford University focusing on election law. But “I think they’re a bit different than the risks that we faced in 2020.”

    “Because the Congress and the Vice President are going to be off the playing board in significant ways, I think the effort is going to be focused more on states,” Seligman said, such as pressuring Republican-controlled Legislatures or secretaries of state to take unprecedented action. There have now been years for Trump’s legal team to contemplate new avenues to reverse legitimate election results, he added.

    Sheri Berman, a political scientist at Barnard College, agreed that state and local election officials are likely to be in the spotlight.

    “We have a very decentralized electoral system,” she said, creating multiple avenues for legal disputes. “There’s lots of potential places where things can go wrong.”

    Since 2021, Trump’s grip on the Republican party has also intensified, multiple experts noted.

    More than half of Trump supporters have no confidence the results of the 2024 election will be accurately counted and reported, according to a recent USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll. A majority of GOP candidates in the 2022 midterm elections denied or questioned the results of the 2020 election. The new Speaker of the House, Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana, was a leader in a legal effort to overturn the election.

    If Republicans retain control of the House or win the Senate, they would be responsible for adhering to the new electoral count process, perhaps under immense pressure from Trump or their constituents.

    How your vote gets in front of Congress
    Before the election, state political parties typically choose people to serve as electors if their presidential candidate wins. In most cases, whichever candidate wins the most votes in each state claims all of its electoral votes (Maine and Nebraska use a proportional system).

    The winning party’s electors meet to cast their votes in December after the election. A copy of those votes are sent to the Vice President to be counted in front of Congress on the following Jan. 6. Whichever candidate received the most electoral votes – at least 270 – becomes the president.

    This is typically an uneventful process. But as the votes are read out, members of Congress can object to counting them. They’re required to state the reason they’re objecting in writing, and under the old procedure, only one senator and one member of the House was required to object.

    If that happens, the Senate and the House are required to meet in their own chambers and debate the merits of the objection and vote on whether to accept it. If both chambers do, those votes are excluded from the total count.


    Insurrectionists loyal to President Donald Trump try to break through a police barrier, Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, at the Capitol in Washington. The Department of Justice is prosecuting those who violently stormed the Capitol.

    What happened on Jan. 6, 2021
    This process played out three years ago, when Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, both Republicans, objected to Arizona’s results, citing allegations of election fraud that had been raised in eight separate lawsuits and rejected each time.

    It was the climax of months of challenges by the Trump campaign to keep the presidency despite losing the election.

    Trump and his allies pressured state and local election officials not to certify the election results; encouraged Republican electors to submit their votes and pushed officials in key swing states to formally recognize them rather than the duly elected Democratic slate; and pressured his Justice Department to declare a formal investigation into alleged fraud, among other efforts.

    Trump had also been publicly pushing Republican lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence to reject the elector’s votes in an effort to help him reverse the election results, or declare the election disputed in order to buy time for state legislatures to replace Democratic electors.

    Pence said he wouldn’t because he didn’t have “unilateral authority” to reject the results, and the lawmakers’ plan to overturn certain states’ votes wouldn’t succeed because of the House’s Democratic majority.

    But the two chambers split to debate the objection, which was intended to be the first of six – lawmakers planned objections to Georgia, Nevada, Michigan and Wisconsin as well. The debate was interrupted when a mob of Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol.

    After the building was cleared nearly six hours later, the chambers resumed their debate and eventually defeated the Arizona objection. Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., objected to Pennsylvania’s results shortly after midnight. That objection was rejected after 3 a.m. Thursday, Jan. 7, 2021. The other objections never materialized, and the results were certified.
    ________

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    We'll it will be setting a dangerous precedent if it does decide to let hundreds off rioters off charges relating to trespassing on and criminal damage to Federal Property let alone the assaults on Police and other public officials that occurred during the riot. IMO that's a Rubicon they won't want to cross. Anyone charged with sedition or conspiracies related to the attempt to overthrow the election? That's a different kettle of fish. Those charges have a much narrower legal scope and there might well be wiggle room for them to narrow the definition of or raise the burden of proof required for such charges.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots



    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential campaign.

    The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to take up Trump's appeal of a case from Colorado stemming from his role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    Underscoring the urgency, arguments will be held on Feb. 8, during what is normally a nearly monthlong winter break for the justices. The compressed timeframe could allow the court to produce a decision before Super Tuesday on March 5, when the largest number of delegates are up for grabs in a single day, including in Colorado.

    The court will be considering for the first time the meaning and reach of a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office. The amendment was adopted in 1868, following the Civil War. It has been so rarely used that the nation's highest court had no previous occasion to interpret it.

    Colorado's Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, ruled last month that Trump should not be on the Republican primary ballot. The decision was the first time the 14th Amendment was used to bar a presidential contender from the ballot.

    Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in the Capitol attack. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.

    The high court's decision to intervene, which both sides called for, is the most direct involvement in a presidential election since Bush v. Gore in 2000, when a conservative majority effectively decided the election for Republican George W. Bush. Only Justice Clarence Thomas remains from that court.

    Three of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Trump, though they have repeatedly ruled against him in 2020 election-related lawsuits, as well as his efforts to keep documents related to Jan. 6 and his tax returns from being turned over to congressional committees.

    At the same time, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have been in the majority of conservative-driven decisions that overturned the five-decade-old constitutional right to abortion, expanded gun rights and struck down affirmative action in college admissions.

    Some Democratic lawmakers have called on Thomas to step aside from the case because of his wife's support for Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. Thomas is unlikely to agree, and there was every indication Friday that all the justices are participating. Thomas has recused himself from only one other case related to the 2020 election, involving former law clerk John Eastman, and so far the people trying to disqualify Trump haven’t asked him to recuse.

    The 4-3 Colorado decision cites a ruling by Gorsuch when he was a federal judge in that state. That Gorsuch decision upheld Colorado's move to strike a naturalized citizen from the state's presidential ballot because he was born in Guyana and didn't meet the constitutional requirements to run for office. The court found that Trump likewise doesn't meet the qualifications due to his role in the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021. That day, the Republican president had held a rally outside the White House and exhorted his supporters to “fight like hell” before they walked to the Capitol.

    The two-sentence provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that anyone who swore an oath to uphold the constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it is no longer eligible for state or federal office.

    After Congress passed an amnesty for most of the former confederates the measure targeted in 1872, the provision fell into disuse until dozens of suits were filed to keep Trump off the ballot this year. Only the one in Colorado was successful.

    Trump had asked the court to overturn the Colorado ruling without even hearing arguments. “The Colorado Supreme Court decision would unconstitutionally disenfranchise millions of voters in Colorado and likely be used as a template to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

    They argue that Trump should win on many grounds, including that the events of Jan. 6 did not constitute an insurrection. Even if it did, they wrote, Trump himself had not engaged in insurrection. They also contend that the insurrection clause does not apply to the president and that Congress must act, not individual states.

    Critics of the former president who sued in Colorado agreed that the justices should step in now and resolve the issue, as do many election law experts.

    “This case is of utmost national importance. And given the upcoming presidential primary schedule, there is no time to wait for the issues to percolate further. The Court should resolve this case on an expedited timetable, so that voters in Colorado and elsewhere will know whether Trump is indeed constitutionally ineligible when they cast their primary ballots,” lawyers for the Colorado plaintiffs told the Supreme Court.

    The issue of whether Trump can be on the ballot is not the only matter related to the former president or Jan. 6 that has reached the high court. The justices last month declined a request from special counsel Jack Smith to swiftly take up and rule on Trump’s claims that he is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election, though the issue could be back before the court soon depending on the ruling of a Washington-based appeals court.

    And the court has said that it intends to hear an appeal that could upend hundreds of charges stemming from the Capitol riot, including against Trump.
    _______________

    Surprising that the SCOTUS decided to move things along so quickly. What won't be a surprise is their decision against the states.

    Leave a comment:


  • statquo
    replied
    Watching Trump’s lawyer go on tv and give political reasons why Kavanagh and the other justices will side with him rather than legal reasons was pretty funny. You’d assume she’d be fired immediately but in Trumpland that’s their worldview.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Also Pete, keep in mind this decision has to be made in time for primary ballots to be mailed out to overseas Americans including DOD. That sets the clock a lot earlier.
    Maybe so, but it doesn't set it at 'now'. The fact she is delaying implementation to see what SCOTUS says simply proves that point. She was grandstanding. I just hope it doesn't cost her party votes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    Originally posted by JRT View Post

    While I would agree that some will perceive the decisions as being "...against the danger that it makes Trump look more like a victim/Dems look like they are trying to do an end run...", and that may add some difficulty to those charged with making such decisions, I would argue that giving any weight to such considerations would corrupt the decision making process into a still more partisan process. The question that they need to answer is whether or not Trump is disqualified by 14A, whether or not he engaged in insurrection and violated his oath of office, yes or no. What they need to try to ignore is how others will respond to the decision, political ramifications.
    Sorry, but this was a political decision taken by a politician. Political considerations were in play from the outset. There was no compelling reason to do this NOW, assuming there ever was. She could have waited but she wanted her moment in the spotlight. All politics & theatre. There is zero reason she could not have waited to see what SCOTUS says, whic his wha tshe and Colorado are now doing anyway. Which, in turn, proves that she could simply have waited. Stupid decision.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Also Pete, keep in mind this decision has to be made in time for primary ballots to be mailed out to overseas Americans including DOD. That sets the clock a lot earlier.

    Leave a comment:


  • JRT
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
    Regardless of the constitutionality, and there remain questions about the specific grounds cited, it is the wisdom of doing this at this moment I am getting at. Given the high likelihood the Colorado decision was going to end up in SCOTUS anyway what would the harm be in waiting? I don't see any positive achievement here against the danger that it makes Trump look more like a victim/Dems look like they are trying to do an end run around voters. I don't buy the argument that she was somehow compelled to do this, especially right now.
    While I would agree that some will perceive the decisions as being "...against the danger that it makes Trump look more like a victim/Dems look like they are trying to do an end run...", and that may add some difficulty to those charged with making such decisions, I would argue that giving any weight to such considerations would corrupt the decision making process into a still more partisan process. The question that they need to answer is whether or not Trump is disqualified by 14A, whether or not he engaged in insurrection and violated his oath of office, yes or no. What they need to try to ignore is how others will respond to the decision, political ramifications.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post

    Pete,

    In the US the voting system is run by the states...usually by the secretary of state. Each state sets its own districts and laws covering voting.A state level secretary of state has the authority to what has happened IAW that state's constitution. The state GOP can sue and have it taken to state and federal Supreme Court but this is not an unconstitutional move.
    Buck,

    Regardless of the constitutionality, and there remain questions about the specific grounds cited, it is the wisdom of doing this at this moment I am getting at. Given the high likelihood the Colorado decision was going to end up in SCOTUS anyway what would the harm be in waiting? I don't see any positive achievement here against the danger that it makes Trump look more like a victim/Dems look like they are trying to do an end run around voters. I don't buy the argument that she was somehow compelled to do this, especially right now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    I am not saying this is in reaction to the decision regarding the Primary Ballot decision but wouldn't surprise me in the least.


    Suspect arrested after breaking into judicial building in Denver after crash, holding security guard at gunpoint

    An intruder in Denver shot out a window of the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center, entered the building and held an unarmed security guard at gunpoint early Tuesday morning. The suspect was arrested after allegedly firing additional shots and starting a fire inside the building that is the home of the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado Court of Appeals.



    Colorado State Patrol said in a press release this all started with a two-vehicle crash at 13th Street and Lincoln Street where one individual reportedly pointed a handgun at another driver around 1:15 a.m. Tuesday.

    A short time later, the suspect, whom Denver police identified as an adult male, shot out a window on the east side of the building and climbed in. Soon after, he came into contact with an unarmed security guard from the Colorado State Patrol Capitol Security Unit.

    He held the guard at gunpoint, took their keys, and proceeded to access other parts of the building, eventually making his way to the 7th floor, where he fired additional shots. Law enforcement set up a perimeter around the building, and at around 3 a.m. the suspect called 911 to surrender. He was taken into custody and transported to a hospital to be cleared by medical personnel.

    There were no injuries to occupants in the building, the suspect, or law enforcement.

    The Denver Fire Department was called to the scene at one point because law enforcement spotted a fire. Firefighters were quickly able to get the fire under control.



    There is significant and extensive damage to the building, according to the Colorado State Patrol.

    The suspect's identity has not been released.

    The judicial center is located at 2 East 14th Avenue just off Civic Center Park in downtown Denver.



    The Colorado Supreme Court made headlines late last year when it ruled that former President Donald Trump is disqualified from holding the presidency under the Constitution's so-called insurrection clause and ordered the secretary of state to exclude his name from the state's Republican presidential primary ballot. That decision has been appealed.

    As of Tuesday morning, the Colorado State Patrol and the Denver Police Department do not believe this to be associated with previous threats to the Colorado Supreme Court Justices. The Denver Police Department is taking the lead on this investigation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Last night NPR played an interview they did with the Maine SOS and what she she did and why she did it. Really brings out she was following what is required by Maine state law.

    It's a 6 minute listen and its worth your time

    https://www.npr.org/2024/01/02/12223...-supreme-court


    Maine's secretary of state tells NPR why she disqualified Trump from the ballot


    JANUARY 2, 20245:00 AM ET
    By

    Scott Detrow


    Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (right) ruled former President Donald Trump can't appear on the state's 2024 Republican primary ballot.

    Drew Angerer/Getty Images, Robert F. Bukaty/AP

    President Donald Trump's representatives say they will soon file an appeal so that he can stay on Maine's 2024 Republican primary ballot.

    Last week, Maine became the second state to rule the former president is ineligible to run because of what he did in the days leading up to, and on, Jan. 6, 2021.

    That followed a similar move by Colorado's state Supreme Court.


    Both states cited Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which states in part that individuals who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" should be disqualified from holding office. The amendment was ratified in the wake of the Civil War.

    Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, made the decision to disqualify Trump, and on Monday spoke with All Things Considered host Scott Detrow about what led to that ruling, what comes next, and the threats she has faced since it was announced.


    This interview has been light edited for length and clarity.
    Interview highlights


    Scott Detrow: So how did you define "engaging in insurrection" here?

    Shenna Bellows: Well, let's back up first and make sure that everyone understands that Maine law is, to my knowledge, different from every other state.

    Under Maine law, when I qualified Mr. Trump for the ballot, any registered voter had the right to challenge that qualification. Five voters did so, including two former Republican state senators. And then I was required under the statute, under the law, to hold a hearing and issue a decision, and do so within a very compressed timeline. So this wasn't something I initiated, but it's something that's required under Maine election law.

    Donald Trump speaks to supporters from The Ellipse near the White House on Jan. 6, 2021.

    Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

    Detrow: So the question came to you, but it puts you in the position of weighing a really serious question with big consequences that's in front of a lot of state courts right now. And that is this question of whether the attempt to overturn the election and what happened on January 6 was insurrection. How did you think about that key question?

    Bellows: So I reviewed very carefully the hearing proceedings and the weight of the evidence presented to me at the hearing. And that evidence made clear, first, that those events of January 6, 2021 — and we all witnessed them — they were unprecedented. They were tragic. But they were an attack not only upon the capital and government officials, but also an attack on the rule of law, on the peaceful transfer of power. And the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that they occurred at the behest of, and with the knowledge and support of, the outgoing president. And the United States Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government. And under Maine election law, I was required to act in response.


    Detrow: And I understand, as you point out, this is the way the system is set up. You are put in the position of making this ruling. But I do want to ask about some of the specific criticism that has come your way following this ruling. Others have said this, but Maine congressman Jared Golden is somebody who voted to impeach Trump for what he did on January 6, he made it clear he doesn't want to see him in office again, and he said: "We are a nation of laws. Therefore, until [Trump] is actually found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed on the ballot." What's your response to that line of criticism?

    Bellows: So I encourage people to read my decision, and also read very carefully Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It doesn't say "convict." It doesn't say "convicted" or "impeached." But furthermore, here's what's very, very important: In my decision, I made clear this is part of Maine's process. It now goes to Maine Superior Court. Mr. Trump may, and will, appeal to Superior Court. Then it goes to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. And I voluntarily suspended the effect of my decision pending that court process, because we are a nation governed by the constitution of rule of law. And that is extraordinarily important.

    So I can't agree more with representative Golden that it's the rule of law that matters. And in Maine, under our election laws, the only recourse for the voters seeking to challenge Mr. Trump's qualifications was to bring that challenge to the secretary of state — to me — and I was required to do my job to hold a hearing to review the evidence and issue a decision. And that begins the process in our state.

    Detrow: Do you think the U.S. Supreme Court needs to take this question up?

    Bellows: We would certainly welcome the United States Supreme Court to make this clear.

    Detrow: And you mentioned that your ruling is on hold for the moment. Same applies to what the state supreme court did in Colorado. How quickly do you in Maine, as the person who oversees elections in Maine, how quickly do you need clarification from the U.S. Supreme Court in order to move forward for the primary?


    Bellows: Under federal law all our military and overseas voters are eligible to receive their ballots 45 days prior to the presidential primary, which in Maine is on March 5. So here in Maine, those voters are eligible to receive their ballots on January 20. So the courts are compelled by a very compressed timeline as well here in our state. And I am hopeful we'll have resolution.


    Detrow: I do want to ask your response to one other line of criticism from former President Trump's legal team — and many Republicans — saying this is just partisan, pointing out you're a Democrat, arguing that this is just a partisan attempt to take him down in a moment when he's leading in many polls. What is your response to that, because it's been a clear part of the narrative for several days.

    Bellows: Politics and my personal views played no role. I swore an oath to uphold the constitution and that is what I did. And I will tell you, my house was swatted on Friday night. I stand by doing my job, but the response — the threats of violence and threatening communications — have been unacceptable.

    Detrow: Do you have extra security at this point in time, there have been other threats as well.

    Bellows: Law enforcement has been incredible. They have been so supportive of me in this time. I feel safe, and I will continue to do my job and uphold my oath that I swore to the constitution, because that comes first.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
    Not sure how happy I am about state officials removing Presidential candidates from the ballot. Glad she has formally held off until SCOTUS decides the issue.
    Pete,

    In the US the voting system is run by the states...usually by the secretary of state. Each state sets its own districts and laws covering voting.A state level secretary of state has the authority to what has happened IAW that state's constitution. The state GOP can sue and have it taken to state and federal Supreme Court but this is not an unconstitutional move.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X