No. of Recommendations: 7
Laurence Tribe was on MSNBC tonight and gave a fabulously concise answer to the question about Trump as a write-in candidate (or any other state or federal candidate failing this qualification test). Here's how he framed it.
Imposing a qualification for an office then blocking someone from taking that office or running for it because of a failure to comply with that qualification isn't a PUNISHMENT of the would-be occupant. It's simply a consequence of enforcing the requirment for the office. There is no "right" to run for office. If you meet the requirements, great. If you don't, your "rights" have not been violated.
If someone fails to meet the qualifications for an office, the voters don't have some superseding "right" to push an individual into the position simply by voting for them, even on a write-in basis. The enforcement of the qualification takes precedence over any other input into the process.
Note to people of any political persuasion. This is a good example of why political parties need to do a far better job screening candidates. In this Tribe framing of the issue, "qualification for office" applies at any stage of the process. If a candidate is ineligible for any reason (age, citizenship status, criminal status, insurrection, etc.), if the candidate forges an identity that masks that during the campaign and gets elected THEN the disqualifying information comes out, it won't matter that the candidate GOT on the ballot or WON the election. They are still ineligible for office and once that fact is known, they cannot occupy the office. There won't be a one-term mulligan for anyone eventually found to have such a disqualification.
WTH
