Personally, I don’t think it’s a smart political move for the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party to go to court to try to get Trump and Pence taken off the November ballot. I certainly understand the reasoning, but I’m not arguing on the merits.
Under Minnesota state statutes, major parties need to supply the name of the party’s presidential and vice presidential nominees, the names of ten nominated electors and ten alternate electors in order to officially get their candidates on the ballot. As the Washington Post reported, the Minnesota GOP elected its electoral college members – the ones who actually cast the ballot – at its state convention in May, but forgot to elect alternate electors.
To rectify the problem, the state party held a last-minute meeting to select the alternates, a process the Democrats say violated election law. Minnesota’s secretary of state accepted the certification, and Trump was ultimately added to the ballot.
Did the process used to select these alternative electors violate state law? It appears so, since the statute provides that the alternates be chosen by a ‘delegate convention.’ And an abruptly called meeting of the party’s executive committee is not in any way a convention of delegates.
So, legally, I think they have a case. I can’t say whether they’ll win the case or not, but there’s a reason that as recently as late August, two days before the Secretary of State’s deadline, Trump and Pence appeared nowhere on the Minnesota sample ballot. It’s because they hadn’t provided alternate delegates, and the solution they came up with was driven by time constraints rather than compliance with the statute.
Still, there’s a higher moral calling here, which is to give people the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice. Third party spoilers aside, this election is a choice between Clinton/Kaine and Trump/Pence, and I don’t see it as more important that the GOP dot all their ‘i’s correctly than that Minnesotans get a fair shot at expressing their preference.
The same principle should apply to the voter who discovers that their precinct has moved or can’t find their photo ID. Whether you want to make their vote ‘provisional’ or not, their right to vote should take precedence over niggling details.
What’s to be gained by taking this choice away from the voters of Minnesota? Does the DFL Party think they’ll be more popular for it? And, true, Minnesota probably isn’t a swing state and Trump is unlikely to win there anyway. I think that it would actually be worse if this was being attempted in a highly competitive state, because that would seem to be an effort to actually change the result of the election by disregarding the voters of an entire state just so you can say that you made sure that letter of the law was respected.
In my opinion, the DFL Party should drop this suit and go talk to voters about showing up to support their congressional candidates.
I agree. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is getting old. Picking the wrong candidate was bad enough; doubling down is not smart.
Given the fact that the NC GOP is trying to nullify a federal court order through local election board action, I say that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Signal that this year Democrats are in full court press. But that’s just because I’m tired of all of this bullshit enabling Republican victories.
Let them lose and maybe they’ll stop the nonsense. And states love to pull this crap on third parties. Might that now be the GOP?
Yes, I’m being a devil’s advocate here.
Meh. Its pretty funny while its going on, but its useful because it highlights how chaotic the local republican party is right now.
In principle, you’re right, though I wonder how much propaganda value this generates. “Republicans are such a pack of loser nitwits, they can’t get their candidates on the ballot.” That value is diminished when it turns out they did get the names on the ballot and then the DFL sued to get it off, but maybe there’d be something there.
In Minnesota it would be silly and counterproductive, a way of giving the Rs something almost-legitimate to grumble about. Now if it were Texas . . .
I don’t see why they are wrong to bring the case. It appears that the law wasn’t followed, and the court needs to rule on it. A plaintiff doesn’t automatically win a case. Maybe the judge will bring some equity into the decision. Yes the law was not followed, but considering the rights of the voters … That’s essentially what you are advocating. But it’s the judge’s responsibility, not the plaintiff’s.
As an attorney, there are times one decides not to bring a particular case or set a particular hearing (or object to a particular piece of evidence at hearing) because to do so would be counterproductive. Those who just hammer away relentlessly are not the most effective. The Republicans are not popular because they’ve hurt their own credibility. Sure, they still have lots of fans. But overall, Democrats are turning the table on them. Twenty years ago, they were ascendant, talking about a permanent majority. Today that vision lies in ruins. I don’t think we should pattern our strategies on theirs. We need to be way smarter.
Point taken.
If Jeb hadn’t thrown thousands of mostly African-American off the rolls in 2000 Gore would have been President in spite of Nader and the butterfly ballot. Did the Republicans face any consequences for that? No. Have they stopped. No, they’ve gotten worse.
It’s time to stop bringing a billy club to a knife fight.
See, that’s where you lost me, right there at “moral calling”.
>>there’s a higher moral calling here
so you’ve changed the subject of your blog from politics to religion? This is two stories in a row where you’re talking about “morals”. If I wanted that I’d go find a pastor.
IIRC, the goal here is to win an election, against opponents who don’t even understand the concept of a higher moral calling.
I didn’t notice any discussion of morality. Was more about what’s effective and what’s not. Politics isn’t all force. Finesse is important too.
I always cast my politics morally. For someone to complain about it just means they’re either a newbie or they have reading comprehension issues.
And that’s a good place to start from. One can come up with any number of examples of the moral dimension of the struggle for social justice from abolition to the Civil Rights movement to the trade union movement to women’s suffrage. Casting your politics morally tends to put you on the right side of history.
The problem is, there’s you don’t get social justice without the political power to win and maintain it. For example the Civil Rights movement was all about political power; it took winning the Voting Rights Act to break the back of Jim Crow rule in the South. But without being codified and institutionalized, in law and custom, any progress in the fight for social justice can evaporate overnight. The current state of the VRA is a good example of that, and it proves the necessity of holding and expanding power in order to maintain the progress you’ve won and prevent it from being rolled back.
You don’t get political power without moral compromise. It doesn’t even make sense to try. And furthermore we’re at war right now with a bunch of people who would take us all back to 1850 if they could. That’s the issue here, not “that Minnesotans get a fair shot at expressing their preference” to back to that time. Anything that gives us a tactical advantage in that war is worth considering favorably. Treating the other side “fairly”, although it might satisfy some standard of ethics or morality or the Marquis of Queensbury rules, could lead to disaster.
IOW “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”
Yes. So it comes down the question: whose eggs get broken — ours, or theirs?
Nice touch.
serious question.
The rest is all blah, blah.
Look, if our country’s elections were actually predicated on the moral premise that everyone deserves the opportunity to vote for their choice of candidate, every citizen over 18 would be automatically registered; ballots would be delivered electronically or by mail, with lots of time to vote, including on non-work days; and it’d be far easier for all parties to gain ballot access and have the resources they need to get their message out.
Republicans oppose all such measures. Democrats support them only when they perceive (as with increasing turnout) that they’ll benefit. The bottom line for both parties is gaming the system for institutional advantage – not full participation in a democracy. The DFL suit is in a long tradition of such gamesmanship tactics by both parties. Even when Democrats are better on such issues, far too often it’s for the wrong reasons. You can’t criticize this one tactic without also being critical of the whole tangled, sordid system.
I doubt you would be so charitable if this happened to the Greens or Libertarians. I’m with Tarheel, mostly. Just how major can a party be if it can’t even meet the ballot requirements for their slate of electors?
Booman — I get your point, but I think you missed something.
At the heart of this is a simple question: are we still a nation of laws?
If we are, and the Minn. Rs did not follow the law, then there should be consequences for not following the law.
If, on the other hand, they are allowed this mulligan, it sends yet another signal to us working folks that the U.S. has two sets of laws: one for the suckers, and one for the rich/connected.
I applaud the DFL Party.
“In my opinion, the DFL Party should drop this suit and go talk to voters about showing up to support their congressional candidates.”
..on the condition that Trump is listed on the ballot as Donald “weaselheaded fucknugget” Trump.
Booman, I agree with all you say, except the republican party being supposedly the party for the rule of law, personal responsibility, and following the higher moral standard are constantly breaking the law. So I say prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. If that means they’re off the ballot so be it. Our prison systems are full of people who did not benefit from someone suggesting that there is a higher moral standard to be applied here and the gavel came down and off they went. The voters still will have a choice to vote, hell they can even write in the candidate of their choice with them on the ballot or not. Following some supposed higher moral standard in my opinion has allowed our country to be at times in the recent past to be run by war criminals and let them walk among us even today. Who is the criminal the person who breaks the law and admits they’ve broken the law or the people who do nothing after the law is broken. Who suffers the most after the fact? Society loses if the laws are not enforced. There is a process to change bad laws.