No Ballot for You! Challenging a Candidate’s Qualifications to Run and Serve in Office
Author, Nevada Lawyer, Oct. 1, 2024
In March 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Trump v. Anderson and unanimously rejected the attempt to keep former President Donald Trump off Colorado’s 2024 ballots. Colorado had advanced a novel but straightforward argument: the events of January 6, 2021, rendered former President Trump ineligible for future federal office per the 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution. Unable to serve, Colorado’s election officers were duty-bound to keep Trump off the ballot, or so the argument went. It did not matter that Trump was the near-certain Republican nominee for president or that he had a realistic shot at reelection.
Colorado’s opponents framed the question in more consequentialist terms. The U.S. presidency is a national office, its occupant picked by a national election. No one state could filter federal constitutional law through a state process to potentially decide the 2024 presidential election without the nation’s voters having a say. Presidents become presidents by winning elections, not trials. Anything else would be anti-democratic and anti-American, or so that argument went.
Click here to read the full article.
Recent Insights
Read MoreCalifornia’s AB 1050: Removing Barriers to Housing Redevelopment on Commercial Properties
Presentation | December 05, 2025International Considerations in Your Life Sciences IP Due Diligence Review
Presentation | December 05, 2025Vested Rights and Development Agreements
Client Alert | December 04, 2025Risk Assessments Under the New CCPA Regulations Commence Jan. 1, 2026
Article | December 04, 2025Legislative Updates for Planning and Zoning
Client Alert | December 04, 2025Amazon v. Malloy: A Shakeup in NV Wage and Hour Law Results in New Legislation
You have chosen to send an email to Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck or one of its lawyers. The sending and receipt of this email and the information in it does not in itself create and attorney-client relationship between us.
If you are not already a client, you should not provide us with information that you wish to have treated as privileged or confidential without first speaking to one of our lawyers.
If you provide information before we confirm that you are a client and that we are willing and able to represent you, we may not be required to treat that information as privileged, confidential, or protected information, and we may be able to represent a party adverse to you and even to use the information you submit to us against you.
I have read this and want to send an email.