Of course, it would have to be THIS brand of CAULK-US.
Posted on 12/20/2023 3:30:28 PM PST by Chad C. Mulligan
The Colorado Republican Party said it would start using a caucus system rather than participating in a primary election if the state supreme court's decision banning former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot remains in place.
After GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said Tuesday evening on X, formerly Twitter, that he would withdraw from Colorado's primary ballot if Trump is not allowed on, the state Republican Party responded: "You won't have to because we will withdraw from the Primary as a Party and convert to a pure caucus system if this is allowed to stand."
Trump vowed to appeal the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court after the state judges ruled that Trump is ineligible to run for the White House for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Riot under the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause.
"We think this is an absurd ruling and we're going to do whatever we can to protect the rights of voters in Colorado and frankly across the nation and choose Donald Trump, if they so choose," Colorado Republican Party Chair Dave Williams told CNN after the court's decision.
"We're going to appeal this to the United States Supreme Court. We're a party to the case and we're not going to take this lying down. And if need be, we're going to withdraw from the primary and go to a strict caucus process that would allow our voters to choose Donald Trump if they want," he also said.
Follow Madeleine Hubbard on X or Instagram.
Can the state choose to ignore the results of a caucus?
And what happens WHEN the Democrats issue a court order banning Trump from the caucus process? What then?
Assuming this would be allowed, and I’m not convinced, aren’t we just relying on the national GOP to determine who would receive primary votes from Colorado?
Megadittos to that.
Of course, it would have to be THIS brand of CAULK-US.
Assuming this would be allowed“
Allowed by whom? Your second point is what l was thinking. The GOPe is a bunch of never Trumper a-holes. Wouldn’t switching to caucuses put the decision with same base hating bastards who gave us Ronna as party head?
As opposed to the Colorado Democrats?
If the Republicans switch to a caucus in CO, CO will make up a reason to keep Trump off of the general ballot.
Barring him from a primary is one thing - those are wholly controlled by the state - barring him from the general, without a conviction, is in direct violation of federal law.
Before this whole primary nonsense, you had to belong to the party AND be an active member to select a candidate who would run for the party in the “only” election. That’s why the DNC keeps breaking their own internal rules about who gets to run (like Bernie in the last primary) because these are private orgs and they can pick and choose their candidate and ignore the primaries altogether. It makes the party distrustful but hey, it works doesn’t it?
The general elections are the ones guarded by federal and constitutional protections.
That's not how a caucus works. Any and all grassroots Republicans can attend the caucus, and the results would be binding on the state party. Someone from Iowa please chime in here.
I live in a caucus state. I can’t see how that would work. The caucus system is very informal and individualistic, a perhaps a bit chaotic. I think what the GOP should do is choose a slate of electors’ names rather than put Trump’s name on the ballot. After all, that is who we are actually voting for.
“ The general elections are the ones guarded by federal and constitutional protections.”
******************************************************
I’m pretty sure primary elections fall under constitutional law also. My concern is that by making it a caucus, the Colorado Republicans have given the Roberts court an excuse (IT’S MUTE) to not look at this now allowing other states to engage in further mischief in 2024.
No. the state merely administers the primary election for the parties if that is the method chosen for selecting the delegates to the National convention. Parties are not required to have primaries or even caucuses to select the delegates. The smaller parties like the Green Party, Peace and Freedom, etc. just have a national convention but don't have primaries or caucuses.
They’re regulated (somewhat) through federal law but there’s nothing about them in the constitution - only how the general operates. Primaries evolved as a way of selecting candidates to open up selection to the general public when itused to be tightly held by political bosses who picked favored winners to run.
While the state has a role in administering a primary - printing ballots, counting votes, etc. - they have no role in a caucus. That is run by the party itself and the state has no say.
“If the Republicans switch to a caucus in CO, CO will make up a reason to keep Trump off of the general ballot.”
I think the CO SOS said even write-ins would not be allowed.
As always, it’s what is in the Constitution plus case law that has been decided in the past. Here is a brief summary:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/election-laws
Generally the states are given a pretty free hand as to how to run their elections (which Democrats took advantage of in 2020). Thus, mail-in ballots, etc were permitted under the constitution.
The main reason states have been limited is when first amendment rights are at risk, and it seems to me the Colorado ban is a prima facia case that those who want to vote for Trump are being denied the opportunity to do so. I’m not a lawyer but I’ll bet that is part of the challenge that will put an end to this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.