[EL] Rumors on replacing Trump (redux)
Jonathan Swan
jswan at thehill.com
Sat Oct 8 09:02:09 PDT 2016
Apologies - I was just privately reminded that no quotes from this thread
are to be used. If anyone who spoke here would like to comment for a news
story on the logistics of replacing Trump please reply to me privately.
On Saturday, 8 October 2016, Jonathan Swan <jswan at thehill.com> wrote:
> David, Rick, Sandy, Derek, Jim -- Would you mind if I quoted your
> contributions to this thread for a story?
>
> On Saturday, 8 October 2016, Derek Muller <derek.muller at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','derek.muller at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> I'm not so sure. I think it may be easier than one may anticipate. For
>> instance, in 2000, Missouri Senate voters learned quite quickly that a vote
>> for the deceased "Mel Carnahan" meant a vote for his widow. The letters
>> "Mel Carnahan" were simply hieroglyphics on the ballot.
>>
>> In the (even more unlikely) event Trump is replaced prior to the third
>> presidential debate and the Commission (subject to adequate polling to meet
>> its objective standards, etc.) could invite this Republican alternative to
>> the debate.
>>
>> But unless and until some combination of Don Jr., Ivanka, Chris Christie,
>> and Rudy Giuliani persuade him to drop out, the chances of this scenario
>> happening are effectively nil....
>>
>>
>> Derek T. Muller
>> Associate Professor of Law
>> Pepperdine University School of Law
>> SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/author=464341
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/derektmuller
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Pildes, Rick <pildesr at mercury.law.nyu.edu
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The problem I see is that voters have to understand themselves to be
>>> voting for some Republican alternative to Trump. That would be hard to
>>> communicate effectively to enough potential voters without the name of that
>>> alternative on the ballot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard H. Pildes
>>>
>>> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
>>>
>>> NYU School of Law
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Levinson, Sanford V [mailto:SLevinson at law.utexas.edu]
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 08, 2016 10:17 AM
>>> *To:* Schultz, David A.
>>> *Cc:* Pildes, Rick; JBoppjr at aol.com; lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu;
>>> law-election at uci.edu
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lawcourt-l] [EL] Rumors on replacing Trump (redux)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Forget all these technicalities. Why isn't the easiest thing for a
>>> number of Republican electors to announce that they will cast their votes
>>> for a untainted Republican. The best choice would clearly be John Kasich,
>>> who has conducted himself as a man of honor and is a plausible president.
>>> In any event, if Hillary doesn't get a majority of electoral votes, a few
>>> Republican votes for Kasich (or Romney) sends it to the House, which must
>>> choose among the three top electoral vote getters. This allows the RNC to
>>> renounce Trump without requiring new ballots or risking court fights, since
>>> I'm assuming that some states don't bind electors. For the record, of
>>> course, I would like to see Clinton win in a landslide, but I do wonder why
>>> the "House option" isn't being discussed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sandy
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 8, 2016, at 9:16 AM, Schultz, David A. <dschultz at hamline.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Assume for the sake of argument that Jim Bopp and I are correct that
>>> rule 9 does not allow for the RNC to remove Trump from the ticket. What if
>>> nonetheless the RNC uses rule 9 to do so and Trump goes to court to fight
>>> it. Would the courts rule this an internal party matter and therefore
>>> decline jurisdiction or rule in favor of the party, or would they be
>>> willing to take the case and potentially argue that Trump was wrongly
>>> removed by the ticket? I tend to think the courts would see it as an
>>> internal party matter and not want to intervene in a political dispute or
>>> fight about who is the legitimate party nominee (and therefore cause more
>>> voter or ballot confusion). Or do some think the courts would say that
>>> removing Trump at this late date would not be allowed by rule 9 and to do
>>> so would cause more voter and ballot confusion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Pildes, Rick <
>>> pildesr at mercury.law.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> My recollection is that the DNC rules do contain language that more
>>> clearly permit the DNC to remove a candidate from the ballot than Rule 9 of
>>> the RNC, just for comparison.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard H. Pildes
>>>
>>> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
>>>
>>> NYU School of Law
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
>>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *
>>> JBoppjr at aol.com
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 08, 2016 7:25 AM
>>> *To:* dschultz at hamline.edu; law-election at uci.edu;
>>> lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu
>>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Rumors on replacing Trump (redux)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with David that Rule 9 clearly does not authorize the RNC to
>>> remove Trump. It only authorizes the RNC to fill a vacancy if it occurs,
>>> ie for instance, if he steps down. The applicable part is:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to
>>> fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination,
>>> or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President . . .*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This sentence only empowers the RNC to fill vacancies, not create them.
>>> The phrase that some are pointing to is "*vacancies which may occur by
>>> reason of death, declination, or otherwise"*. "Otherwise" here refers
>>> to how vacancies may occur, ie "*by reason of death, declination, or
>>> otherwise". *For instance, a vacancy could occur by disqualification of
>>> the candidate by election officials or a court, because the candidate does
>>> not meet the legal qualifications to be a candidate. There may be other
>>> reasons that a vacancy could occur.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The power to create a vacancy is a separate and independent power from
>>> the power to fill vacancies and that power would have to be conferred
>>> on the RNC by a specific rule, which does not exist.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jim Bopp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In a message dated 10/7/2016 10:04:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>>> dschultz at hamline.edu writes:
>>>
>>> In light of Trump’s recent comments about women and questions about
>>> whether he can be replaced, consider first the rule 9 THE REPUBLICAN
>>> NATIONAL COMMITTEE which is posted below.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The simple answer is no simple answer regarding what happens if Trump
>>> were to be replaced on the ticket. The RNC executive committee has the
>>> authority to replace Trump if he steps down or is otherwise incapacitated.
>>> A coup does not seem possible and it does not appear that he can simply be
>>> replaced by the will of the RNC. But assume Trump is replaced. The
>>> second issue is what to do with the ballots. In some states the law would
>>> allow for a substitution while in others the law is more complicated and we
>>> might a reprise of the Minnesota Wellstone death 11 days before the
>>> election (of which I know way too much about). We also have, as with
>>> Wellstone, the issue of already cast ballots and rights under state and
>>> federal law that may force a right to recast ballots. There are a lot of
>>> complicated practical as well as federal and state statutory and
>>> constitutional issues at play here and there is no one simply answer that
>>> applies to all 50 states.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> RULE NO. 9
>>>
>>> Filling Vacancies in Nominations
>>>
>>> (a) The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered
>>> to fill any and allvacancies which may occur by reason of death,
>>> declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the
>>> United States or the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United
>>> States, as nominated by the national convention, or the Republican National
>>> Committee may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling
>>> any such vacancies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> David Schultz, Professor
>>> Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
>>> Hamline University
>>> Department of Political Science
>>>
>>> 1536 Hewitt Ave
>>>
>>> MS B 1805
>>> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
>>> 651.523.2858 (voice)
>>> 651.523.3170 (fax)
>>> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
>>> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
>>> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
>>> Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
>>> My latest book: Presidential Swing States: Why Only Ten Matter
>>>
>>> https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739195246/Presidential-Swing-Sta
>>> tes-Why-Only-Ten-Matter
>>> FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> David Schultz, Professor
>>> Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
>>> Hamline University
>>> Department of Political Science
>>>
>>> 1536 Hewitt Ave
>>>
>>> MS B 1805
>>> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
>>> 651.523.2858 (voice)
>>> 651.523.3170 (fax)
>>> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
>>> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
>>> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
>>> Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
>>> My latest book: Presidential Swing States: Why Only Ten Matter
>>>
>>> https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739195246/Presidential-Swing-Sta
>>> tes-Why-Only-Ten-Matter
>>> FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lawcourt-l mailing list
>>> Lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu
>>> https://list.umass.edu/mailman/listinfo/lawcourt-l
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Jonathan Swan
> National Political Reporter
> The Hill
>
> 202-349-8124 office
>
> 202-390-7353 cell
>
>
>
--
Jonathan Swan
National Political Reporter
The Hill
202-349-8124 office
202-390-7353 cell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161008/f9c45299/attachment.html>
View list directory