A "group" of three voters challenged Trump's eligibility
The three voters are Kimberly Rosen, Thomas Saviello, and Ethan Strimling. Rosen is a former Republican state senator. Saviello is an independent. Strimling is a Democrat.
and of course Bellows had to follow the required "process" which would allow her to disenfranchise over 300K ME Republican citizens from voting for the candidate of their choice.
The "disenfranchise" argument is widely made, and as I consider it from the view of an ordinary Republican voter who wants to vote for Trump, I have some sympathy for the argument. If I want to vote for Trump, and if I was prevented from doing so because the powers that be disqualified him from being listed on the ballot, I would feel disenfranchised. It would seem like an injustice to me. It would seem to me that Trump is right is saying the system is rigged. And it would motivate me to support Trump even more since no one else is strong enough to right this wrong and restore my voting rights.
Additionally, a number of prominent Democrats are arguing that the right thing to do is keep Trump's name on the ballot to let the voters decide, not the courts.
It would piss me off that people were trying to negate my vote by disqualifying Trump. It is fundamentally wrong to disenfranchise me and others like me. Indeed, if I am so disenfranchised, democracy has failed, the Constitution has failed, the courts have failed and America is America no more. That gives me permission to rise in revolt to establish or re-establish a better system in which I am not disenfranchised and I am allowed to vote for or otherwise support my leader of choice.
When one focuses on voting as the solution to the eligibility issue, these are the comments you hear. But if one focus on maintaining the integrity of the Constitution and the voting process itself, you end up arguing the legal aspects of the issue, not the political side. And that's what I'm inclined to do.
To me, while voting is absolutely crucial for all citizens in a democracy, it is even more essential that the system by which the voting is conducted is more essential. The rules must be fairly and equally applied, and that the integrity of Constitution itself - the core mechanism that established the rules - be maintained.
In this case, the fundamental question is not about a voter's right to vote. That has not been challenged in the recent cases. The voters' right to vote remains sacrosanct. The fundamental question is about a particular candidate's eligibility to be in the race.
If voters wanted to vote for Putin, they are not disenfranchised because Putin's name is not on the ballot. The pro-Putin voters are unable to vote for their candidate of choice because Putin is obviously not eligible to hold the office of US president. In the Trump case, the eligibility question is less obvious, which is why it is now working its way through the courts and will eventually be resolved by SCOTUS.
But however SCOTUS decides, it will be deciding a candidate eligibility question, not a voter disenfranchisement question.
Bellows isn't an elected official - she's appointed by a group of state Democrat party leaders.
Actually, "As a Constitutional Officer, the Secretary is elected biennially through joint ballot of the Maine State Legislature." (
Source) At present, Democrats hold the majority in both the state senate and house.
Considering Maine is a strong Blue state, she could've left Trump on the ballot and let the voters decide. Instead she used three Democrat allies
It was not three Democratic allies. As stated above it was one Republican, one independent and one Democrat who filed the challenge.
to aid the process that facilitated this nakedly partisan decision.
The Secretary anticipated that objection when she explained her decision. She argues the deciison was made on its merits, not on partisan considerations. And given the very interesting point you made, the fact that she took up the issue at all and made the ruling she did, suggests she really did do what she said she did. She took up the case not for partisian reasons, but because the law retured her to. And she did not take the easy way out, leaving Trump on the ballot and letting Blue Maine defeat him in November. She brought down a ton of heat on herself by making the ruling she thought the law required her to make.
And that's exactly what's going to happen in both CO and ME; Trump will remain on both ballots pending appeal. CO ballots go to the printer on Jan 5th, so SCOTUS needs to rule before then. Ain't gonna happen.
That's why it would be best for SCOTUS to resolve this ASAP. The longer they wait, the messier this becomes. Yes, ballot printing has a deadline. But the deadline itself does nothing to render Trump eligibile or ineligible to hold the office of president. That decision rests with the courts, whenever they make it.
If Trump appeals, and SCOTUS does not quickly rule, or chooses to not rule (unlikely), we could end up in a situation where Trump is on the ballot in Maine and Colorado but votes cast for him will not be counted. Further, in Minnesota and Michigan, courts there made rulings regarding the primary ballot. Both state supreme courts said the Trump eligibility question can be later filed regarding Trump's name on the general election ballot.
This will get messier and messier the longer SCOTUS waits.
