• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, we’re not.

      The prohibition is from holding office, not from running for an election. The primary ballots all have their own state level rules. And I’m pretty sure so are the main elections, too. It isn’t until he tries to take office that it encroaches, is my interpretation.

      He should be removed, because he can’t take office and his name is a waste of time, but… Nobody that matters listens to me.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree. He shouldn’t be. But that doesn’t mean lawyers and judges agree.

          the ballots and election process are largely left to the states. (Baring violations of the CRA, etc,)

          Keep in mind, at the moment, it’s state supreme courts and their rules they’re voting on (as deciddd by MN Supreme Court , recently. The judge made a very wink-wink-hint-hint note in his ruling saying it “may” not be the same case in the main election)