“I will be asking the attorney general’s office for their input,” Secretary of State David Scanlan told the Globe. “And ultimately whatever is decided is probably going to require some judicial input.”

A debate among constitutional scholars over former president Donald Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 presidential race has reverberated through the public consciousness in recent weeks and reached the ears of New Hampshire’s top election official.

Secretary of State David Scanlan, who will oversee the first-in-the-nation presidential primary in just five months, said he’s received several letters lately that urge him to take action based on a legal theory that claims the Constitution empowers him to block Trump from the ballot.

Scanlan, a Republican, said he’s listening and will seek legal advice to ensure that his team thoroughly understands the arguments at play.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    The judicial input is on whether Trump qualifies to be included in that described group which is disqualified. The problem with the self-executing clause here is that of course the described group of people are barred but who decides who qualifies?

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is for state officials whose duty it is to ensure that only qualified persons are on the ballot to enforce. Indeed, if those state officials refuse or neglect to enforce the US Constitution, they could be held personally responsible.

      • Eufalconimorph@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        He’s not yet been convicted. If he gets on some ballots, wins those states’ Republican primaries, and then gets convicted (and thus disqualified) the party will have to decide who of the other candidates gets their nomination. If different candidates came in second in different states, that could get interesting.

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          As I have said many times elsewhere, 14A S3 does not state that a conviction is required.

          This is not about “being a criminal, guilty of specific crimes.” This is about having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, and that behavior disqualifying a person from holding office.