In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" respondent Anderson et al. claims that including Donald Trump on the ballot would be a "wrongful act" by the Secretary of State as Donald Trump does not qualify

  • Claim


Name

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" respondent Anderson et al. claims that including Donald Trump on the ballot would be a "wrongful act" by the Secretary of State as Donald Trump does not qualify

Types

Claim

Broader claims

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" respondent Anderson et al. claims that US Supreme Court should not review Trump’s claim that Colorado Supreme Court’s in "Anderson v Griswold" ruling somehow violated the Electors Clause

Opposing arguments

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" Donald Trump claims that Colorado legislature could have intervened in Trump presidency ballot disputes only when a person “charged with a duty” under the Colorado Election Code “has committed or is about to commit a breach or neglect of duty or other wrongful act" and secretary Griswold did not commit a breach or neglect duty or other wrongful act

Quotes that oppose the claim

The Colorado Supreme Court tried to concoct a “wrongful act” by claiming that Secretary Griswold would violate section 1-4-1203(2)(a)—a provision of state election law—by certifying President Trump to the ballot. But section 1-4-1203(2)(a) limits only the political parties that may participate in Colorado’s presidential primary election, and requires only that participating political parties have at least one “qualified candidate”: [E]ach political party that has a qualified candidate entitled to participate in the presidential primary election pursuant to this section is entitled to participate in the Colorado presidential primary election. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-4-1203(2)(a). The Colorado Supreme Court somehow managed to transform this statutory language into a requirement that every candidate that appears on a presidential primary ballot be “qualified,”— and it falsely claimed that Secretary Griswold would violate section 1-4-1203(2)(a) if she failed to remove disqualified presidential candidates from the Republican primary ballot.

Quotes that support the claim

Colorado law limits participation in presidential primaries to those political parties fielding a “qualified candidate.” Pet. App. 29a; COLO. REV. STAT. § 1-4-1203(2)(a). And other provisions of the Code help explain what it means to be “qualified,” referring to a candidate who “desires the office and is qualified to assume its duties if elected.” Pet. App. 53a–55a; COLO.REV. STAT. § 1-4-1101(1). Because the Election Code requires the candidate to be qualified to be on the ballot, the Anderson Respondents stated a valid claim that including Trump on the ballot would be a “wrongful act” by the Secretary of State. Id. at 51a–55a (quoting COLO. REV. STAT. § 1-1-113).

Supporting arguments

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" respondent Anderson et. al claims that there is a requirement in Colorado Electors code for every candidate to be qualified

Referenced by

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" respondent Anderson et. al claims that there is a requirement in Colorado Electors code for every candidate to be qualified

US Politics

Claim

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" respondent Anderson et al. claims that US Supreme Court should not review Trump’s claim that Colorado Supreme Court’s in "Anderson v Griswold" ruling somehow violated the Electors Clause

US Politics

Claim

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" Donald Trump claims that Colorado legislature could have intervened in Trump presidency ballot disputes only when a person “charged with a duty” under the Colorado Election Code “has committed or is about to commit a breach or neglect of duty or other wrongful act" and secretary Griswold did not commit a breach or neglect duty or other wrongful act

US Politics

Claim