The Colorado Ballot Case: What Happened to the Conservative Notion of States Rights?
“The whole point of the 14th Amendment was to restrict state power,” this is Chief Justice Robert’s assertion. While there are clarifications regarding what States can do in The Fourteenth Amendment, a good portion of The Fourteenth Amendment is to affirm the rights of all United States citizens and outline the protections that States are required to offer all United States citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment also offers additional guidance to States regarding federal office holding requirements.
Yes, States must defer to the Constitution and to the laws of the federal government. That, for sure, is explicitly stated. However, that doesn’t mean that the power that States have been granted in other parts of the Constitution have been erased or supplanted in some crazy way as Roberts appeared to imply with his questioning.
States have the authority to manage elections for federal offices. They have the authority to print ballots for federal offices. They have the authority to send delegates to the Electoral College to vote for President and Vice-President. When printing ballots, States have the authority and responsibility to follow the Constitution.
Additionally, the United States Constitution provides that you cannot be 34 years of age or younger to hold the Office of President. You cannot be a Naturalized Citizen to hold the Office of President. You cannot be an insurrectionist to hold the Office of President. You cannot give aid or comfort to insurrectionists and expect to hold the Office of President. This is clearly defined in the Constitution. The States are NOT limited in this power. The States can decide who is included on the ballot for all these cases. States can exclude anyone from the ballot if candidates do not meet the requirements to hold an elected federal office. Colorado was following the Constitution when its highest court made its ruling in favor of removing a disqualified candidate from its ballot.
If these candidates cannot hold the Office of President, then there is no legitimate reason for States to print disqualified candidate names on the ballot. Also, it is the federal government that has limited to no involvement in all these election processes managed by States not the other way around as Roberts suggested. Nowhere in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say anything about taking away the States’ right to run elections for Federal government offices.
The Fourteenth Amendment only amends the power that States have as described in Article II of the Constitution, to clarify that the power States have cannot conflict with the Federal Constitution, Federal Government rulings or the general rights guaranteed to all citizens of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The amendment then goes on to indicate what powers States have, “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” These inclusions in The Fourteenth Amendment are less of a limitation than they are a clarification.
Earlier in the Constitution, the second paragraph of Article Two clearly spells out the power States have, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” Also, Article Two, paragraph 5, specifies, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, amends who can qualify as a Presidential candidate with additional requirements for the States: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” Here, the federal government by way of Congress, does have the power to veto the State’s decision. But, overall, the Constitution gives States quite a bit of power.
Chief Justice Robert’s combative tone in his line of questioning on Thursday, February 8th, 2024, during oral arguments in the Colorado Ballot Case (Trump v. Anderson) seemed very odd and bizarre to me. There used to be a time when conservatives believed in States rights, especially in the ones that appear to be clearly assigned to States in the Constitution. What happened to that?
References:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
https://apnews.com/article/federal-government-role-elections-392a5567755549336fe91132b9fd5908
The Polarity Resistance 