Well, well, well.

So much for the idea of a state’s preventing a federal candidate from being on the state’s ballot.

The U.S. Supreme Court on March 4 blocked Colorado’s effort to do just that.

And the high court thereby called a halt to other states’ similar efforts.

ı ı ı

The opinion is in Trump v. Anderson.

Some Colorado voters tried to prevent 2024 presidential candidate Donald Trump from being on Colorado’s ballot as President Trump 45 seeks to become President Trump 47.

The Colorado voters cited Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Boiled down, the pertinent part is: “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, … who, having previously taken an oath, … as an officer of the United States, … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

This narrow issue before the court was whether under this section a state may prevent Trump, as a presidential candidate, from being on the state’s ballot.

The Colorado Supreme Court said “yes.” The U.S. Supreme Court reversed in a per-curiam opinion–meaning one for the court and not signed by any justice–and said “no.”

The vote was 9 to 0, with two separate concurring opinions, one signed by one justice speaking only for herself, and one signed by three other justices.

The per-curiam opinion is sweeping, too sweeping for the concurring justices’ taste.

Nevertheless, the per-curiam opinion, plus the two concurrences, run only 20 pages, which is good, because here brevity is better than whichever antonym of brevity you prefer. To make it even more brief, here’s the pertinent language.

“This case raises the question whether the (s)tates, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that (s)tates may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But (s)tates have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the (p)residency.

“Because federal officers ‘”owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,”‘ powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically ‘delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States.’ But nothing in the Constitution delegates to the (s)tates any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.

“Instead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Section 3 with respect to would-be or existing federal officeholders.

“Finally, state enforcement of Section 3 with respect to the (p)residency would raise heightened concerns. ‘(I)n the context of a (p)residential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest.’ But state-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for (p)resident from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that ‘the (p)resident … represent(s) all the voters in the (n)ation.’

“Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings that are necessary to make Section 3 disqualification determinations.

“The ‘patchwork’ that would likely result from state enforcement would ‘sever the direct link that the (f)ramers found so critical between the (n)ational (g)overnment and the people of the United States’ as a whole.”

That’s the end of a state’s preventing federal candidates, particularly presidential candidates, from being on its ballot.

Randy Elf likes brevity in this opinion.

COPYRIGHT – 2024 BY RANDY ELF