Category Archives: US Supreme Court

Colorado Ruling Reverberations: Why Removing Trump From the Ballot Does and Doesn’t Matter



Happy Holidays! The Ellis Insight will be taking a break over the Christmas holiday. We’ll return with new Insights on Jan. 2, 2024.


By Jim Ellis — Friday, Dec. 22, 2023

President

Former President Donald Trump / Photo by Gage Skidmore

Colorado Republicans Pivot: Caucus Format Considered — A decision by The Colorado State Supreme Court Wednesday barred former President Donald Trump from the primary 2024 ballot because the justices maintained he violated the 14th Amendment by engaging in insurrection; this ruling predictably has ignited fierce responses.

The Trump campaign says they are immediately appealing the ruling to the US Supreme Court. Candidate Vivek Ramaswamy says he will withdraw from the Colorado ballot in protest and urges the other Republican presidential candidates to do the same. The Colorado Republican Party leadership is saying they may eschew the presidential primary and move to an internal party-run caucus format.

Since the political parties control their own nomination processes, the Colorado Republicans would have the authority to change from the primary format to a caucus. The party would then also slate its own candidates to compete for the presidential nomination. In the absence of a US Supreme Court ruling overturning the Colorado decision, changing to a caucus would likely be the party’s best option for giving Trump an opportunity to compete for Centennial State delegate votes.

Other state Supreme Courts, most notably Arizona and Minnesota, also have ruled on Trump’s ballot status and they arrived at the opposite conclusion to the Colorado high court, thus allowing him to compete in their state primaries. Even if the Colorado ruling stands and Trump is not on the state’s primary or general election ballot, it is unlikely to affect the presidential race outcome there. President Joe Biden is a lock to carry Colorado with or without Trump’s name on the ballot, so the national electoral vote count won’t change regardless of how the present controversy is ultimately resolved.

We could again see this issue arise in the general election. The states have the power to accept or reject the political party nominees for ballot placement, so it is conceivable the state Supreme Court could deny Trump ballot access in the general election along the same lines of reasoning present in their current decision.

Should the 14th Amendment controversy carry over to the general election, that would not do particular harm to the down-ballot Republicans, or even Trump for that matter. The former president is not going to win Colorado in the November election, so not appearing on the ballot here would have little effect on the national electoral vote count.

For the down-ballot Republicans not having to run with an unpopular Trump in their state, and with the former president’s voters likely incensed that he was barred from participating, the turnout pattern may actually improve for the Colorado Republican congressional, state Senate, and state House candidates if the former president were to be denied the ability to compete.

If other states were to follow Colorado’s lead, again absent a US Supreme Court ruling, it would likely only be in strong blue states, or those where Trump is clearly not going to win. Likewise, down ballot Republicans in those states may actually fare better, particularly in a place like California, then they would with Trump at the top of their ticket.

It is probable that the general election scenario described above, and very possibly even the primary situation, will not denigrate to the degree of a former president being denied ballot access because the US Supreme Court will likely face enough pressure to hear the Trump appeal and issue a ruling.

Since the former president was not charged with insurrection in any of his indictments and was even acquitted of such when it was part of the second impeachment proceeding, legal analysts believe that there is a better than even chance that the high court will rule in his favor and order the Trump name to appear on ballots across the nation.

Trump, Biden Ahead by Wide Margins in New Poll; Navy SEAL Declares in Montana; Redistricting News from Alabama, North Carolina

New Hampshire GOP presidential poll results / WMUR TV graphic

By Jim Ellis — Thursday, June 29, 2023

President

New Hampshire Poll: St. Anselm College Releases Regular Poll — The New Hampshire Institute of Politics of St. Anselm College published their latest regular survey of Granite State voters (June 21-23; 1,065 registered New Hampshire voters; live interview) and sees former President Donald Trump gaining strength in the Republican primary while principal challenger Gov. Ron DeSantis is losing support. The partisan primary numbers find Trump leading Florida Gov. DeSantis, 47-19 percent with no other candidate exceeding six percent support.

On the Democratic side, President Joe Biden dominates Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and author Marianne Williamson, 69-9-8 percent. These numbers exceed how the president is performing nationally. Since the state is unlikely to agree to moving their primary to comply with the new Democratic National Committee calendar, these numbers suggest that Biden could win a write-in campaign against his two intra-party challengers even if he doesn’t enter the official Democratic primary.

In hypothetical general election pairings, President Biden would lead both former President Trump and Gov. DeSantis with the same 49-40 percent spread. This data suggests there is less chance that New Hampshire will become a major general election Republican conversion target.

Senate

Montana: Retired Navy SEAL Declares Candidacy with NRSC Endorsement — Retired Navy SEAL and aerospace company CEO Tim Sheehy (R) announced his US Senate candidacy Tuesday. Immediately, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, with its chairman being Montana’s junior Sen. Steve Daines, endorsed Sheehy’s candidacy. The Montana Senate race is expected to be one of the hottest campaigns in the country as Republicans attempt to deny incumbent Sen. Jon Tester (D) a fourth term.

Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Glendive), who is also expected to join the race, responded with a Tweet saying, “congratulations to Mitch McConnell and the party bosses on getting their chosen candidate. Now Washington has two candidates – Tim Sheehy and Jon Tester – who will protect the DC cartel.” Early polling shows Rep. Rosendale beginning the race with a substantial lead, so we can expect both a hot general election campaign, and an equally tough Republican nomination contest next year in Big Sky Country.

House

Alabama: Governor Calls Special Redistricting Session — To comply with the US Supreme Court ruling on the Alabama racial gerrymandering case that went against the state, Gov. Kay Ivey (R) said that she will call a special redistricting session for the purposes of drawing a new map to comply with the decision. The legislature will report on July 17 to begin the process.

Since Alabama is a Super Tuesday state and is holding its regular primary on March 5, time is short to draw a new map and obtain the necessary judicial approvals. The ruling and new map is expected to give the Democrats an extra seat in the Alabama US House delegation that currently stands at 6R-1D.

SCOTUS: North Carolina Case Ruling — In an unsurprising 6-3 ruling, the US Supreme Court ruled against the state of North Carolina on the subject of redistricting. Legal analyst Derek Muller of the Election Law Blog describes the crux of the state’s argument as saying, “the state constitution or state judiciary cannot constrain the state legislature exercising power under the Elections Clause.” Predictably, the justices ruled that the judiciary does have the authority to involve itself in redistricting decisions but underscored that the Supreme Court has the power to restrain lower courts from taking too much power away from the legislative bodies.

Largely because the North Carolina state Supreme Court has already reconsidered its previous partisan gerrymandering decision, the high court confined itself to the judicial power question.

SCOTUS Rules; Calif. Recall Scheduled

Current US Supreme Court

By Jim Ellis

July 6, 2021 — On their last day of the year’s early session last week, a Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States issued rulings on the Arizona voting rights case and the California non-profit organization disclosure lawsuit.

In the Democratic National Committee v. Brnovich, the Supreme Court with Justice Samuel Alito writing for the 6-3 majority, ruled that the state of Arizona did not infringe upon minority voting rights or violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in both prohibiting ballot harvesting with certain exceptions, and not counting provisional ballots cast from voters who do not reside in the particular precinct that the polling place covers.

The high court agreed with Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s (R) arguments that the laws are not racially motivated, nor do they intentionally discriminate against certain segments of the voting population, thus overturning the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.

Originally in 2016, Brnovich won at the district court level and on the first appeal to a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit. The DNC requested an en banc review of the original appellate ruling that agreed with Brnovich, and the entire 9th Circuit membership overturned the decision, siding with the plaintiff. At that point, AG Brnovich petitioned the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. (Hearing cases en banc allows the full circuit court to overturn a decision reached by a three–judge panel. Due to the decreasing probability of U.S. Supreme Court intervention, the circuit court is often the court of last resort in the ordinary life of a case, thereby amplifying the importance of en banc review.)

In his ruling, Justice Alito stated that “every voting rule imposes a burden of some sort,” and that “mere inconvenience cannot be enough to demonstrate a violation of Section 2.” He also cautioned that, “what are at bottom very small differences should not be artificially magnified.”

While agreeing that holding free and open elections is a “valid and important state interest,” he also addressed the voter fraud argument, clearly stating that attempting to prevent such abuses is also a “strong and entirely legitimate state interest.”

In her article discussing these rulings, Supreme Court expert Amy Howe, in her Howe on the Court article that was published on the SCOTUS blog, offered that the Brnovich ruling “will make it more difficult to contest election regulations under the Voting Rights Act,” and thus likely means fewer voting rights cases coming through the courts. She further categorized this decision as a “major ruling.”

Continue reading

Colorado Elector’s Case
Stirs the Electoral College Pot

By Jim Ellis

Colorado Elector Michael Baca / 9NEWS

Aug. 26, 2019 — Reports came out late last week that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in Denver ruled in favor of a former Colorado Elector, Michael Baca, who filed a constitutional lawsuit against the state. In the 2016 Electoral College vote, the Colorado Secretary of State removed Baca from the delegation after he informed state authorities that he would not vote for Hillary Clinton when the Electoral College met.

Thirty states, including Colorado, have a statutory requirement that the official electors, in Colorado’s case nine individuals, cast their vote for the presidential candidate who carried the state. In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton carried the Centennial State over Donald Trump, 48-43 percent.

Baca was coalescing with other electors around the country, the so-called “Hamilton Electors,” who thought they could convince enough members in Trump states to vote for another candidate in order to force him below the 270 minimum electoral vote threshold. In the election, Trump’s victory states awarded him 306 electoral votes. Places like Colorado, however, that went for Clinton, would do Trump no damage if its electors did not carry through with the voters’ expressed desire, illustrating one of several ways that the “Hamilton” strategy was fundamentally flawed.

After Baca’s removal, he quickly filed his lawsuit arguing that his constitutional rights were violated because the state has no authority to bind its electors. Baca lost at the federal district level but now has won a 2-1 appellate decision before a three-judge panel.

What happens now? The 10th Circuit is in conflict with a previous Washington state Supreme Court ruling that came to the opposite conclusion. Thus, it is likely that the US Supreme Court will be petitioned though the Washington ruling, because it comes from a state court, is a lesser factor in the federal domain.

The Colorado elector legal action, like the Compact Coalition that is attempting to convince states holding a majority of electoral votes to agree to have their electors vote for the national popular vote winner regardless of how the individual state voted, is designed to eliminate the Electoral College’s power and change the US voting system to a straight popular vote.

Continue reading

Forecasting the Results – Part II

By Jim Ellis

2018-democrat-house-majority-breakdown-text-graphicOct. 8, 2018 — The Democrats need to convert a net 24 seats to secure a one-seat majority in the US House on Election Day, Nov. 6. Many reports quote the number 23 as what is necessary to win control, but the new Pennsylvania map will yield one seat coming back to the Republicans — the new open 14th District — thus pushing the total up to 24.

As stated Friday, our forecasts listed below are based upon a series of factors, including current polling numbers, voter history, candidate personal and job approval favorability, fundraising, other races on the state ballot that could drive turnout, and outside issues such as the confirmation vote to for Judge Brett Kavanaugh to become a Supreme Court Justice, which could change the turnout model, etc.

According to our new analysis, the Democrats are on the cusp of converting the requisite number of Republican seats to take a bare majority and seeing their caucus become significantly larger. At this point, the Democratic gain range appears to reach 23 on the low side and 35 at the apex.

Looking at the country by state and region, it appears the Democrats will do well in the Midwest, in particular. The Great Lakes region that delivered President Trump his surprise victory appears to be snapping back to the Democrats in the midterm House races. Michigan looks particularly good for them at both the statewide and district levels.

Continue reading