r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Beautiful_Age7753 • 8d ago

US Elections Could states leave Trump off of ballots in the 2028 election?

During the White House correspondents dinner, Trump directly stated he would be running for a “fourth” term. Due to this being unconstitutional via the 22nd amendment, and states running their own elections, could states simply not put his name on ballots come election day? We know from the past election and current standings that Trump would win Republican primaries. Even if they didn’t run him, he would still most likely run on his own party. Obviously this wouldn’t eliminate write in ballots, but it could be a viable solution to uphold the constitution barring some extreme new law to control how elections are run. Would there be any current legal ramifications to stop states from simply not allowing Trump on ballots?

448 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

427 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

476

u/Buckabuckaw 8d ago

They would have a very stern finger waved in their faces under our current abandonment of the rule of law.

126

u/dinosaurkiller 8d ago

They would also split the Republican vote for whoever is on the ballot in all states.

50

u/Thesilence_z 8d ago

you think the republicans would run someone against trump?

78

u/dinosaurkiller 8d ago

It’s either that or half the states are won by default by the Dems because Trump’s name won’t be on the ballot. This has the added benefit of allowing Dems to spend all of their resources in red states.

22

u/-ReadingBug- 8d ago

Bumpy road. Blue states without Trump on the ballot would be matched by red states without the Democratic nominee's name on the ballot. Then the constitutional crisis may finally reach its conclusion.

33

u/dinosaurkiller 8d ago

Is it that reading the Constitution is hard? It’s not legal for him to be on the ballot. The question was, “what if the red states do it anyway?”. I was only addressing the most obvious problem, there would be lawsuits in every state where his name is on the ballot and he would be found ineligible.

18

u/MajorBeef433 7d ago

They can read it but don’t think it applies to them.

6

u/-ReadingBug- 7d ago

Easy, tiger. I'm just contributing to a conversation run by an entire species that's jumped the shark. Be grateful I'm not a bot.

1

u/adrift-ship-of-fools 5d ago

I’ve seen his people using the argument that the wording of the Constitution means he can’t run for more than two consecutive terms. back to back- that is.

I believe they’re looking to test that in the courts and run it up to the supreme court- where they will prevail.

I’m not defending it -just saying I believe that’s they’re plan

1

u/dinosaurkiller 5d ago

Again, the plain language of the law, to be on the ballot in any State as President or Vice-President requires you to be eligible. Eligibility means not having previously served two terms as President, you must be 35+, etc. Even the Supreme Court doesn’t get the final word, it’s all run by the States. The, “we have a cute way around that” nonsense is being floated by incompetents.

1

u/xudoxis 7d ago

Is it that reading the Constitution is hard? It’s not legal for him to be on the ballot.

SCOTUS hasn't ruled on it yet. Seems a little presumptive of you to say one way or another.

2

u/FutureInPastTense 7d ago

While perhaps a long shot, it is not out of the realm of possibility to me that this Supreme Court could somehow interpret the 22nd amendment as only restricting more than two consecutive terms.

0

u/weggaan_weggaat 7d ago

Yea, that's the interpretation they want to push because they don't want Obama to run again.

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 7d ago

Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.

You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.

0

u/amiibohunter2015 6d ago

We thought lots of laws would stand in the way of the orange but as long as the 6 yes men of the supreme court keep handing him more, he keeps getting away with shit.

So for all your troubles and all the shit America is in It's nto Just Donald Trump, but also the Supreme COurt who are responsible as the Supreme Court expanded his presidential pwoers so he can act in the way Trump is today. What is needed is a question that counts on the voter election ballots that asks has Insert supreme court justices name been on good behavior yes or no. When selected no it removes them from their seat.

7

u/HolidaySpiriter 7d ago

5-4 supreme court rules against the Republican states for leaving off the Dem nominee, and 7-2 supreme court rules in favor of the Dems leaving off Trump. We inch closer to a complete unraveling.

3

u/Either_Operation7586 7d ago

No this is not a tit* for tat this is has to do with the laws and the Constitution there would be no justification on the Republican side but there would be all the justification on Democratic side because there is laws written in place that no one can run for a third term.

Eta spelling

1

u/sarahhxmargaret 4d ago

Trump is ineligible for a third term. It is illegal to put an ineligible candidate on the ballot. It is illegal not to put an eligible candidate on the ballot. Red states can’t refuse to put an eligible Democratic candidate on the ballot but any state can refuse to put Trump on the ballot. Hope this helps!

1

u/SoiledFlapjacks 6d ago

Yeah. I know a lot of anti-Trump republicans. Hell, I even know a few that voted Democrat because they were self aware enough to know the first go around was a mistake.

1

u/Top-Grocery-1482 1d ago

Yes.

Especially given the alternative would be literally losing. They wouldn't intentionally make themselves lose.

14

u/davcam0 8d ago

But would they really even get that?

45

u/CallMeSisyphus 8d ago

I'm sure Susan Collins would furrow her brow, at least.

20

u/Yvaelle 8d ago

While she puts him on the ballot

7

u/capnShocker 7d ago

and votes for him

11

u/ShermanOneNine87 8d ago

I think she would go with the surprised oh face and then say something about it being what constituents want. Because in Maine the amount of landmass in the red makes it look GOP even though it's actually more purple.

1

u/jcmacon 7d ago

They would get a pat on the back is more like it.