"The rationale behind the many cases which have held that ineligible candidates may not appear on the ballot is that the election process is run at great public expense and for a significant public purpose.
Were elections officials required to place on the ballot the names of ineligible candidates, who are simply out to attract public attention to themselves or to the cause they advocate, the serious business of electing public officials would be jeopardized.
In addition to candidates who are under-age, various political parties might well nominate persons who are not natural-born American citizens, which is also forbidden by Article II of the United States Constitution.
A leftist political group might well attempt to place on the ballot for President Chairman Mao Tse-tung or Premier Fidel Castro. A Catholic party, seeking publicity for a campaign against birth control, might well ask the Secretary of State to certify Pope Paul VI as its presidential candidate.
Regardless of the personal merits of such candidates, their candidacies would be essentially frivolous.
Their presence on the ballot would be a fraud upon the body politic, and would make a mockery of democratic elections."
Cleaver v. Jordan, 393 U.S. 810
As cited in Amicus Brief by Derek T. Mueller, Anderson v. Trump, 2023
US Supreme Court denied certiorari 10/7/1968
As cited in Amicus Brief by Derek T. Mueller, Anderson v. Trump, 2023
You have the case citation backwards, it should be Trump v Anderson. The year 2023 is wrong, it should be 2024. The brief was signed and submitted by Heather Gebelin Hacker, Counsel for Amicus Curiae, dated January 2024. The name is Muller, not Mueller.
Of course, the comment “US Supreme Court denied certiorari 10/7/1968” applies to the case of Cleaver v. Jordan 393 U.S. 810 (1968). A denial of cert says precisely nothing about the merits, or lack thereof.
Trump v. Anderson was decided by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court. The obvious reason you do not demonstrate awareness of the year, the citation, or even the existence of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion is that your “knowledge” came from some wingnut website, and you have not read whatever it is you cite.
From the Amicus Brief of Derek T. Muller:
No. 23-719In the Supreme Court of the United States, Donmald J. Trump, Petitioner, v. Norma Anderson, et al., Respondents
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO
BRIEF OF PROFESSOR DEREK T. MULLER, AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY
At numbered page 4:
ARGUMENTI. States have the power to review the qualifications of presidential candidates.
[...]
A. The Presidential Electors Clause grants states broad power over presidential elections.
At numbered page 6:
B. For more than fifty years, states have determined whether candidates are ineligible and removed ineligible candidates from the presidential ballot.[...]
California excluded Eldridge Cleaver from the ballot in 1968. Cleaver was the 33-year-old nominee of the Peace and Freedom Party.4 He challenged the exclusion in state court, which rejected his challenge.5 Cleaver petitioned for certiorari to this Court. Without comment, the Court rejected the petition. Cleaver v. Jordan, 393 U.S. 810 (1968). A denial of a petition for writ of certiorari says little, if anything, about the merits. But it demonstrates the fact that a state did exclude a candidate from the ballot for failure to meet the qualifications for office, long ago.
4 Associated Press, Eldridge Cleaver Kept Off Ballot, San Clemente Daily Sun-Post, Aug. 22, 1968, at 1; Associated Press, McCarthy, Cleaver Lose Court Fight for California Ballot Spot, Sacramento Bee, Oct. 7, 1968, at 1.
5 Associated Press, Write-In Candidate Names Are Approved, Petaluma Argus-Courier, Sept. 28, 1968, at 1.
From the Opinion of the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESNo. 23–719
DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO
[March 4, 2024]
PER CURIAM.
A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of theFourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in this year’s election,from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado secretary of state to exclude the former President from theRepublican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.
Former President Trump challenges that decision on several grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.
[at 3-4]
We granted former President Trump’s petition for certiorari, which raised a single question: “Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential pri mary ballot?” See 601 U. S. ___ (2024). Concluding that it did, we now reverse.
[at 6]
This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.
[at 7-8]
The respondents nonetheless maintain that States may enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office. But the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, on its face, does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the States. The terms of the Amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5.
This can hardly come as a surprise, given that the substantive provisions of the Amendment “embody significant limitations on state authority.” Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, 456 (1976). Under the Amendment, States cannot abridge privileges or immunities, deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process, deny equal protection, or deny male inhabitants the right to vote (without thereby suffering reduced representation in the House). See Amdt. 14, §§1, 2. On the other hand, the Fourteenth Amendment grants new power to Congress to enforce the provisions of the Amendment against the States. It would be incongruous to read this particular Amendment as granting the States the power—silently no less—to disqualify a candidate for federal office.
The one issue before the Court was the unconstitutional State enforcement of Amendment 14, Section 3. The Supreme Court unanimously sailed Colorado’s usurpation of authority straight up its butt.