Replacing Trump on Ballots: Murky Payoff and a Legal Thicket

[LiberalFighter]

Deadlines in battleground states make prospect daunting (Very complicated)

What’s apparent is the longer any such decision is delayed, the harder it would be for Republicans keen to avoid costly legal fights to navigate ballot issues in each state that could bleed resources from other election efforts.

Deadlines are approaching this month in the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan and Nevada for the political parties to certify the names of presidential candidates and electors for the general election ballot. Other states have deadlines rolling through the summer, with some like New Hampshire allowing prospective changes as late as October.

The prospect of Trump leaving the race but staying on the ballot could put the Republican Party in a bind in Michigan and some other states because of rules on electoral votes. The electors in Michigan are bound to cast their votes for the candidate that appears on the ballot for their party; it’s not enough just to vote for the party of the candidate, Brewer said.

[patsimp]

1. kick

[Ms. Yertle]

2. In 2002

Senator Lautenberg replaced Toricelli on the ballot in New Jersey, even though the deadline had passed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lautenberg#2002_election

Just a guess, but I think the rules would be changed to allow a different candidate's name on the ballot, even if all the ballots would have to be reprinted.

[LiberalFighter]

4. Each state is different with their laws.

None of the states have the option to change a rule to allow a direct substitution. It has to be done legislatively. Also, the laws that apply for a U.S. Senator would not necessarily apply to U.S. President.

Congress does not have a say in how this aspect of the election is covered. As long as a state follows the Constitution and other applicable requirements they can have their own separate requirements.

[Ms. Yertle]

5. I understand what you're saying, but--

--any Dem legislature that would not vote to change the state laws to accommodate the resignation of a candidate would be painted as anti-democratic by their opponents (and with good reason, IMO.) Theu would probably lose their seats in the next election. I don't think they would dare stand firm on an issue like this.

[LiberalFighter]

6. Most states are part-time legislators.

41 states have already completed their session for the year. 1 state will complete their session at the end of this month. The other 8 states are full or nearly full-time.

There is nothing democratic about being bullied to change the law in the middle of the election. And if the states that are Democratic legislative bodies they are not about to be bullied when they have support of their constituents. Their constituents will fully support their state legislators on not changing the law.

[Ms. Yertle]

7. Would you be okay with that?

With the electorate having only one candidate to vote for? Would it be okay with you if it went the other way, say Clinton had to drop out because of health reasons, for instance, and no one had an alternative to Trump? If it's not okay when the shoe is on the other foot, then it shouldn't be okay to deny R's a choice.

[LiberalFighter]

10. It doesn't matter. An election is called to be run.

Section 3 of the 20th Amendment covers that possibility. The VP becomes President.

Using that as an argument doesn't hold water. And just an excuse because you don't like the way it is set up. Besides, we aren't going to let a deranged candidate like Trump become our nominee.

The health reasons is doesn't wash either as Hillary's doctor released his statement. There is always a possibility that a candidate becomes incapacitated for one reason or another. The deadlines for the most part that each state imposes are reasonable which they based on their needs. It allows voters time to know the candidate and reduce the possibility of encouraging a candidate to remove their name from the ballot. And trying to manipulate it. States need to establish a deadline so that they can have ballots ready for the voters. Their deadlines are based on the first day voters can start voting and when they must mail out absentee ballots.

[Ms. Yertle]

8. Would you be okay with that?

With the electorate having only one candidate to vote for? Would it be okay with you if it went the other way, say Clinton had to drop out because of health reasons, for instance, and no one had an alternative to Trump? If it's not okay when the shoe is on the other foot, then it shouldn't be okay to deny R's a choice.

[Cosmocat]

9. The one thing that people aren't factoring into this is Trump

He isn't going to just quit, and if the party made a move to remove him he would, 100 percent, no ifs ands or buts go to court over it.

And, he would have a LOT of standing to fight it, and I can't fathom a court that would, less than 90 days from the election, allow the Rs to do it, much less do it and allow people who vote for him to have that vote count for someone else.

[NurseJackie]

3. Interesting read ... Thanks!