2020 Presidential Election

[howardlander]

It’s tempting to conclude that the California law requiring candidates for President to release their tax returns will automatically have the same outcome as the 1995 case U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, in which the Supreme Court held unconstitutional an Arkansas law prohibiting an otherwise-eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the ballot if that candidate had already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate.

The outcome in Thornton was based on the Court’s conclusion that it is a fundamental principle of the constitution that the people are to choose their representatives to Congress. However, unlike the election of Congress the constitution did not put the election of the President into the hands of the people but rather put it into the hands of the state legislature: “[The President] shall...together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” Accordingly, the Supreme Court pointed out in Bush v Gore that “the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution.” (The definition of “plenary” is “complete in every respect : ABSOLUTE, UNQUALIFIED.”)

(Much intelligent analyses redacted)

Thanks much for this in depth analyses. Seems like someone was paying attention in their law school classes! As a non-lawyer and North Carolina resident, I've got a simpler(and maybe wrong!) take on it. Check out the rules for getting on to the N.C. primary and general election ballots; they are significant and not easily met, but I've never heard anyone trying to argue that the State of North Carolina is imposing conditions on who can serve as President or in any other office. We are simply running our elections as we see best, which has been a State responsibility since the Constitution was adopted. The rules are not about who can serve in any office, but about who appears on the ballot in a State run election, and I suspect California, like NC, already has significant rules for this. This is just one more.

Howard

[swood1000]

Thanks much for this in depth analyses. Seems like someone was paying attention in their law school classes! As a non-lawyer and North Carolina resident, I've got a simpler(and maybe wrong!) take on it. Check out the rules for getting on to the N.C. primary and general election ballots; they are significant and not easily met, but I've never heard anyone trying to argue that the State of North Carolina is imposing conditions on who can serve as President or in any other office. We are simply running our elections as we see best, which has been a State responsibility since the Constitution was adopted. The rules are not about who can serve in any office, but about who appears on the ballot in a State run election, and I suspect California, like NC, already has significant rules for this. This is just one more.

Howard

Claiming that the California restrictions only limit who can be on the ballot won’t fly.

The general rules for getting on the ballot are handled by the Elections Clause of the Constitution, which says that “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof…” In Thornton the Supreme Court shot down the claim of Arkansas that their term limitation scheme was authorized under this provision. The Court said that the Elections Clause was intended to grant states authority to protect the integrity and regularity of the election process by regulating election procedures, not to provide them with license to impose substantive qualifications that would exclude or disfavor classes of candidates.

Arkansas tried an argument similar to the one that you are suggesting. They said that their statute only restricted who could be on the ballot and not who could be elected. If a person who was excluded from the ballot in Arkansas nevertheless won the election by write-in votes he or she would be eligible to serve and so Arkansas claimed that since this was not a restriction on who could be elected or who could serve it should be treated as a procedure rule allowed under the Elections Clause, in the same general category as other mundane ballot access restrictions such as a requirement for gathering a minimum number of signatures. This was rejected as simply an indirect attempt to accomplish what the Constitution prohibits Arkansas from accomplishing directly, since the "intent and the effect of Amendment 73 are to disqualify congressional incumbents from further service." Isn’t it the intent and effect of the California law to disqualify Donald Trump from receiving California electors if he declines to surrender his privacy?

Of course, unlike the rules governing the election of Congress, if the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing Presidential electors is plenary, as the Supreme Court said, then the legislature doesn’t have to bother with elections in the first place. It can use whatever substantive qualification the majority wishes notwithstanding claims that these criteria are invalid since they are in addition to the ones specifically mentioned in the Constitution (natural born citizen, thirty-five years old, fourteen years a resident within the United States, hasn’t already held the office twice).

[Devilwin]

I keep seeing on the Twittersphere that Texas is rapidly turning blue because of the heavy suburbanization of its major cities and those voters turning against Trump. Like you, I'll believe it when I see it.

If Trump loses Texas or Georgia, the election will be a rout. I have serious doubts that either of those will happen though.

It's "Yankees" moving south..lol

[bundabergdevil]

If gun control becomes a major campaign issue, then, IMO, it really decreases the odds of Texas turning blue. Even Austin is loaded with guns.

No, I don't anticipate guns will become a major campaign issue unless (and God forbid) of a major incident shortly before the election. Evidence suggests that there are short-term changes in public opinion following an incident that hits public consciousness. However, my read of the linked graph is things quickly return to normal.

If guns did become a major issue, Bullock could be an interesting candidate for the Democrats coming as he does from a state with one of the highest levels of gun ownership. He mentioned in the last debate that he was both a gun owner and his family the victim of gun violence. Here's an interview w/ Bullock where he discusses both those in more detail. The El Paso thread got shut down per DBR's rules so I'll just say Bullock's experience and two stories make him an interesting candidate on this particular issue --- he both articulates the emotional connection to guns, in this case building father/son bonds through hunting, and the devastating consequences when children have access to them. His 11-Y/O nephew was killed by a 10-year old who brought a gun to school to kill his bullies. Bullock's nephew was unintentionally shot.

Again, only posting this to provide background to Bullock's debate comments and since the issue of guns in relation to the election has come up. Let's avoid the direction of the El Paso thread.

[Devilwin]

Maybe but it is also true that in the studies of the voting breakdown, the never Trumpers ARE indeed more likely to have college educations. As we are on a board that is affiliated with a university, and one considered a top educational institution, it is not a stretch to say that most posters have a college degree. Just sayin'.

Maybe so, but that does not make them smarter, better, or make their opinions more relevant. I went into the USMC instead of going to college. And I could have. I was told my knowledge on animals and nature was at the level of a top field biologist. Upon my discharge, I have always regretted I did not go and further a career in wildlife management. Then I would not have beaten myself down delivering packages for Fedex. Oh, on that subject. I am in my third week of retirement!!!

[Bluedog]

I agree in theory but Trump's approval rating among Republicans is very high...So, it's not true that there are many anti-Trump Republicans. I suspect the "never Trump" Republicans would be ones more likely to post on this board though, as they skew to be highly educated. Trump's support is especially strong among the non college educated.

What an entitled post. Get out of your bubble.

Maybe but it is also true that in the studies of the voting breakdown, the never Trumpers ARE indeed more likely to have college educations. As we are on a board that is affiliated with a university, and one considered a top educational institution, it is not a stretch to say that most posters have a college degree. Just sayin'.

Whoa...that took an unexpected turn from my perspective. My post was simply meant to suggest that the posters on this forum aren't representative of the electorate. I'm saying we ARE a bubble on this forum. I recognize there is a lot beyond this forum/Duke or other college graduates and that was my whole point. That Trump's base of support is very solid and strong. Not that people with college educations are better than those without. Sorry if it came across that way.

And exit polls demonstrated education level was the most highly predictive measure (more than race, gender, etc.) Of course there are some very highly educated people that support Trump too and certainly their opinion is valid. But just looking at exit polls and Trump approval ratings suggest to me that his backing is very solid among a large percentage of Republicans. It's the independents and get out the vote efforts that will have a bigger impact on the results IMO.

[Bob Green]

...the never Trumpers ARE indeed more likely to have college educations.

I made a statement during the 2016 election cycle that Trump was turning the GOP into the Party of the Uneducated. My opinion hasn't changed.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

No, I don't anticipate guns will become a major campaign issue unless (and God forbid) of a major incident shortly before the election. Evidence suggests that there are short-term changes in public opinion following an incident that hits public consciousness. However, my read of the linked graph is things quickly return to normal.

If guns did become a major issue, Bullock could be an interesting candidate for the Democrats coming as he does from a state with one of the highest levels of gun ownership. He mentioned in the last debate that he was both a gun owner and his family the victim of gun violence. Here's an interview w/ Bullock where he discusses both those in more detail. The El Paso thread got shut down per DBR's rules so I'll just say Bullock's experience and two stories make him an interesting candidate on this particular issue --- he both articulates the emotional connection to guns, in this case building father/son bonds through hunting, and the devastating consequences when children have access to them. His 11-Y/O nephew was killed by a 10-year old who brought a gun to school to kill his bullies. Bullock's nephew was unintentionally shot.

Again, only posting this to provide background to Bullock's debate comments and since the issue of guns in relation to the election has come up. Let's avoid the direction of the El Paso thread.

Do you see any reason to think there won't be several "major incidents" between now and the election?

[Devilwin]

I made a statement during the 2016 election cycle that Trump was turning the GOP into the Party of the Uneducated. My opinion hasn't changed.

Ok, please elaborate on that last line if you would sir.

[Bob Green]

Ok, please elaborate on that last line if you would sir.

It seems pretty straight-forward to me, I am still of the opinion Trump is/has turned the GOP into the Party of the Uneducated. The GOP used to be considered the Big Business Party but Trump's Populist/Nationalism platform pulls in many, many supporters with education limited to high school diplomas or less.

That does not mean all Republicans possess a limited education or that all high school dropouts are Republicans, it means Trump has caused a change in the landscape.

[golfinesquire]

Maybe so, but that does not make them smarter, better, or make their opinions more relevant. I went into the USMC instead of going to college. And I could have. I was told my knowledge on animals and nature was at the level of a top field biologist. Upon my discharge, I have always regretted I did not go and further a career in wildlife management. Then I would not have beaten myself down delivering packages for Fedex. Oh, on that subject. I am in my third week of retirement!!!

I was simply pointing out what the statistics bear out. I did not say that the opinions of those of us with BAs are more "relevant." You are reading into that. The issue is the background of the various voters and this is how it broke down. You could certainly be the exception to the rule -- someone without a college degree who voted for Clinton. After all, exceptions are precisely what proves the rule.

[OldPhiKap]

It seems pretty straight-forward to me, I am still of the opinion Trump is/has turned the GOP into the Party of the Uneducated. The GOP used to be considered the Big Business Party but Trump's Populist/Nationalism platform pulls in many, many supporters with education limited to high school diplomas or less.

That does not mean all Republicans possess a limited education or that all high school dropouts are Republicans, it means Trump has caused a change in the landscape.

Nate Silver's breakdown after the election bears out your point Bob:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ote-for-trump/

As with others, not saying that is good or bad.

[bundabergdevil]

Do you see any reason to think there won't be several "major incidents" between now and the election?

Well, no, there will almost certainly be dozens of mass shootings between now and the election. Will there be a major incident that reaches national, public consciousness the way Sandy Hook, Parkland, and so far Dayton/El Paso appear to have within a month or two of the election? That was more the conditional criteria. The article I linked suggested it wasn't all mass shootings, just a certain type that hit national media and "stuck". If this Wikipedia list is reasonably accurate, there are only a few on the list in 2019 that I can name --- Same phenomenon holds true in a lot of crimes. At one point in her career, my wife worked for a national child victim's organization. Thousands of children go missing or are victims of violence each year but most of us only know names like Jon Benet, Elizabeth Smart, etc.

This is making me feel too cynical so I'll leave it at that. I just thought Bullock's story gave him a unique POV on this one issue, which was worth sharing with thread.

[howardlander]

Claiming that the California restrictions only limit who can be on the ballot won’t fly.


Arkansas tried an argument similar to the one that you are suggesting. They said that their statute only restricted who could be on the ballot and not who could be elected. If a person who was excluded from the ballot in Arkansas nevertheless won the election by write-in votes he or she would be eligible to serve and so Arkansas claimed that since this was not a restriction on who could be elected or who could serve it should be treated as a procedure rule allowed under the Elections Clause, in the same general category as other mundane ballot access restrictions such as a requirement for gathering a minimum number of signatures. This was rejected as simply an indirect attempt to accomplish what the Constitution prohibits Arkansas from accomplishing directly, since the "intent and the effect of Amendment 73 are to disqualify congressional incumbents from further service." Isn’t it the intent and effect of the California law to disqualify Donald Trump from receiving California electors if he declines to surrender his privacy?

I'm not sure I agree that the Arkansas case, where the attempt was clearly to limit length of terms, is equivalent to the California case. For one thing, Donald Trump can, if he wishes, comply with the California requirement, whereas a legislator in the Arkansas case had no way to reduce the number of terms he or she had already served. Also no rights are absolute and nowhere in the Constitution does it state candidates are protected from an invasion of privacy: nor is there an explicit right to privacy anywhere in the Constitution *. To the extent that such a right has been asserted by the courts, I think an argument could be made that the interests of the citizenry to understand who they are electing is at least as important as the privacy rights of any individual candidate. Again not a lawyer, but I will be interested to see how the courts handle this issue and what the further implications might be. Could California, for example, require a drug test for a candidate or require a candidate to undergo mental health screening? My only point was, and continues to be, that I don't think it's so clear that California's requirement is going to be overturned.

*: If you ask me this is one of the biggest weaknesses of our Constitution and I would strongly support a privacy amendment that would basically state the the government cannot regulate private behavior such as sexuality or drugs use. Call me a libertarian, at least on this issue.

[Bob Green]

Nate Silver's breakdown after the election bears out your point Bob:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ote-for-trump/

As with others, not saying that is good or bad.

Interesting.

Of the 50 "least educated counties*" listed, nine are in North Carolina.

* Population of at least 50,000

[CameronBornAndBred]

Interesting.

Of the 50 "least educated counties*" listed, nine are in North Carolina.

* Population of at least 50,000

At least the whole of the Triangle is represented in the most educated.

[Bob Green]

At least the whole of the Triangle is represented in the most educated.

I was very happy Cumberland County wasn't in the dummies listing.

[swood1000]

Can you link to anything that ties this to potential impacts on the election? All of the evidence I have seen runs counter: e.g. more education correlates with more likely to vote D. More rural/less education correlates with more likely to vote R.

My comment concerned the characteristics of immigrants preferred, say, by the Republican party, not the characteristics of Republican voters. While socialism may be supported by many of the education and income elites its natural constituency is the poor and those who are struggling to survive.

[bundabergdevil]

And now for something COMPLETELY different. Marianne Williamson makes a donation pitch by photoshopping her face onto GOT's Melisandre...with apparently no real reason or joke or nod to the show. Just her face, Melisandre's body.

Look, if you're a male or female candidate who wants to use GOT, there are only two acceptable options for moral cover: Brienne and Sam. Melisandre, for God's sake, she burned a kid at the stake and birthed a shadow demon!

OTOH, I do not know what Marianne Williamson is or where she came from.

[golfinesquire]

My comment concerned the characteristics of immigrants preferred, say, by the Republican party, not the characteristics of Republican voters. While socialism may be supported by many of the education and income elites its natural constituency is the poor and those who are struggling to survive.

Could you define socialism please. It is a term that is getting thrown around a lot but often by people who don’t actually know what it means.