With news that Democrats are suing to get Donald Trump knocked off the ballot in Minnesota, let me restate something I’ve said many times before about election law and how it should be enforced.
Elections need clear, written and unambiguous rules that everyone abides by. Those laws need to be enforced like all other laws. (Campaigns need non-morons to get their candidates on the ballot.) Partisans have every right to use the law to the advantage of their candidates. But like all laws, what they dictate in a specific situation is not always crystal clear. Indeed, if it were totally clear most suits wouldn’t happen. When there is ambiguity we should try to resolve that ambiguity in favor of democracy, which in this case means allowing people to exercise their choice, making sure votes are counted, etc.
I want to be very clear what I’m saying. When the law can be reasonably interpreted in one of two ways, we should interpret it in favor of giving people the ability to exercise their choice and vote for candidates they support. This came up when Bob Torricelli had to drop out of his 2002 reelection campaign because of an emerging scandal and there was a question about whether Dems could get the now-late-Sen. Frank Lautenberg on the ballot. Same issue with whether Minnesota Trumpers get to vote for Trump.
I will probably have a good laugh at the expense of Team Trump’s incompetence if they get knocked off the ballot. But I’m not the judge. If the law can be reasonably interpreted to favor of allowing him on the ballot, he should be allowed on the ballot.
I say this not having looked at the facts of the Minnesota situation at all. I’m just stating a general principle.
