Plot twist: WA has a law against felons running for office
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/plot-twist-for-trump-wa-has-a-law-against-felons-running-for-office/
Plot twist: WA has a law against felons running for office
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/plot-twist-for-trump-wa-has-a-law-against-felons-running-for-office/
28 comments
Howdy Felon! 🤠
[Here](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29A.68.020) is the statute in question. It allows registered voters to challenge a candidate appearing on the general election ballot “Because the person whose right is being contested was, previous to the election, convicted of a felony by a court of competent jurisdiction, the conviction not having been reversed nor the person’s civil rights restored after the conviction;”
“The real story of this era isn’t so much about this one flawed, narcissistic figure, as it is the spinelessness of the sycophants along the way.”
Yup, that’s a great summary.
So does Florida
Trump got ~37% and ~39% of the vote in WA the last two cycles compared to ~58% and ~52% for Clinton/Biden.
There are similar R/D results going back to Dukakis who beat Bush there in 88.
If he’s removed, it might impact some down ballot races so it’s probably worth investigating a challenge if you live there, but it’s not going to make a difference in the Presidential race.
I honestly didn’t think any state did this, and even now this won’t really matter much (Washington is not a swing state). If it had been a swing state that had this happen we’d be in a different position though, pity.
Good article though.
>In its 1995 decision in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the Court explained: “*[T]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.*” – [States and Election Clause](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-2/ALDE_00013577/)
We will soon find out if being a convicted felon places Trump within a protected “*class of candidates*” if he otherwise meets the Constitutional qualifications for office. Unfortunately, I have no doubt how this conservative-dominated SCOTUS will rule here.
SCOTUS will unanimously rule that it cannot be applied to Federal Elections, which will allow felons to run for House and Senate seats.
There’s not a snowball’s chance in Hell of the Orange Convicted Felon winning WA anyway, but it would be interesting to see the state GOP stand with principle and the rule of law and not promote the crooked bastard.
Yeah right… this is the party that stood behind Ellen Craswell as a candidate for governor when her platform was *”death penalty for homosexuals and whatever other crazy theocratic fascist bullshit my husband tells me I should support”*. Not to mention that MAGAtt sheriff idiot they ran for Governor last time.
The constitution says he’s allowed to run but states could say felons are write in only. It would be tougher for SCOTUS to shut that down.
“I wonder if other states bar felons from running, too.”
It’s an opinion piece, not research
>Washington has a law on the books against convicted felons running for office.
It was first established back when Washington was a territory, in 1865, that anyone convicted of “infamous crimes” could be blocked from holding elected office. That was modified in 1959, and then again more recently, to the scheme we have today.
>is it only for state and local candidates, not federal?
. . . “Whether that provision applies would be a question for courts to decide.”
States do have latitude to control the ballot. Candidates for president are excluded from Washington’s ballot all the time,
I love the ending:
>seems possible that under Washington state law, there would be no name listed on ballots as a Republican candidate for president in November. If so, it will be because the party’s chosen candidate was too much of a disgrace to even meet the minimum state standards.
I wonder if other states bar felons from running, too.
Regardless of what happens with the ballot, why not change course out of basic decency and political expediency? There’s been plenty of talk urging Democrats to drop Biden and pick another candidate at their nominating convention. And all he’s guilty of is having bad poll numbers and being old.
Please leave him on the ballot so his crushing loss can’t be blamed on “radical” states.
Can other states enact such laws prior to the election? Looking at your PA, WA, and MI?
Up next: how red states are changing laws to only allow felons on the ballot
We live in the weirdest timeline and I’m convinced it diverted when we killed that stupid gorilla.
Felons can’t run for office in Oklahoma. But I guess since it’s a federal election and Trump is not from Oklahoma it’s ok.
I love my state! 💙
I dont think I like such a law. Too often have segments of Americans been inappropriately incarcerated
Not applicable to federal elections.
Just channeling SCOTUS here – With regard to eligibility to be elected to a Federal office, States may not impose restrictions beyond those explicitly detailed in the Constitution. (unless we’re talking about a Democrat.)
Plot twist: Trump wasn’t counting on WA to win.
Of course no Red State has laws like this. Only restrictions on voters.
Trump will never win WA but him not being on the ballot might help down ballot races for Democrats in tight districts (if there are any, I don’t follow WA enough to know other than, like Oregon, there are a lot of red districts in the central and eastern parts of the state).
Any constitutional lawyer here want to comment on whether this is enforceable, specifically for the office of President?
It can change the dynamics of down ballot races, discouraging R’s from voting and making even less money available for R candidates, maybe freeing up some D money for swing and no-hope states.
State and local elections are the breeding grounds for national. If you want strong D’s in Congress in 2028 and beyond, get them into state and local positions now.
They shouldn’t — too many perverse incentives.
The SCOTUS already ruled that Colorado and Maine couldn’t remove Trump from the ballot for violating the 14th amendment. They’d likely do the same over this. Although, they probably wouldn’t have stopped Ohio from removing Biden.