Dem
51
GOP
49
On Friday, the Oregon Supreme Court declined to take up a case where the plaintiff, a group called Free Speech for People, wanted to take Donald Trump off the primary ballot based on the Fourteenth Amendment. The court said it was waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the case first. Since the high Court has agreed to take the case, other state supreme courts are also likely to wait as well. There is no point in jumping the gun until it becomes clear what that pesky Fourteenth Amendment actually means.
There has been a patchwork of cases so far, with Trump being disqualified in Colorado and Maine and approved in Arizona, California, Michigan, and Minnesota. To avoid a complete mess, the U.S. Supreme Court had to take the case. It could yet rule that every state can make its own decision, but that seems unlikely to us. More likely than letting each state decide is a "yes, he can run" or "no, he can't run." This is not a case the Supreme Court really wants, so it may try to weasel out of a decision on the merits by finding some technical grounds on which to get rid of all the lawsuits without having to decide whether Trump is an insurrectionist.
In New Mexico, a federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit from one John Anthony Castro, who claimed he was running for president and who wanted Donald Trump removed from the ballot per the Fourteenth Amendment. By claiming he was running for president, Castro had a plausible claim to being injured by Trump being on the ballot and thus getting standing to sue. The judge didn't buy it. He said Castro showed no evidence of running a campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. He hasn't filed to run, raised money, or done the things actual candidates do. Sorry, if you want to get the standing to sue that a candidate would have, you have to be an actual candidate, so no dice. Where is Pat Paulsen when you need him? (V)