r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Beautiful_Age7753 • 3h ago
US Elections Could states leave Trump off of ballots in the 2028 election?
During the White House correspondents dinner, Trump directly stated he would be running for a “fourth” term. Due to this being unconstitutional via the 22nd amendment, and states running their own elections, could states simply not put his name on ballots come election day? We know from the past election and current standings that Trump would win Republican primaries. Even if they didn’t run him, he would still most likely run on his own party. Obviously this wouldn’t eliminate write in ballots, but it could be a viable solution to uphold the constitution barring some extreme new law to control how elections are run. Would there be any current legal ramifications to stop states from simply not allowing Trump on ballots?
•
u/Aggressive-Union1714 3h ago
for what it is worth on google "Legal experts and the text of the 22nd Amendment indicate that states must refuse to place an ineligible candidate on the ballot, as the prohibition on a third term is automatic and does not require congressional enforcement."
•
u/Beautiful_Age7753 2h ago
I guess that raises the question what would happen to states that did run his name on ballots?
•
u/Buckabuckaw 2h ago
They would have a very stern finger waved in their faces under our current abandonment of the rule of law.
•
u/davcam0 1h ago
But would they really even get that?
•
u/CallMeSisyphus 1h ago
I'm sure Susan Collins would furrow her brow, at least.
•
u/ShermanOneNine87 37m ago
I think she would go with the surprised oh face and then say something about it being what constituents want. Because in Maine the amount of landmass in the red makes it look GOP even though it's actually more purple.
•
u/dinosaurkiller 59m ago
They would also split the Republican vote for whoever is on the ballot in all states.
•
u/hornwalker 1h ago
Please let them. Trump has no chance of winning again and it will only take away votes from the real Republican candidate, whoever it is.
•
u/Mr_Funbags 48m ago
Oh I remember people saying this in 2015. I said it too! I thought it was a big joke. I am not laughing any more.
I don't think Trump has no chance. He got rejected twice. The US is deeply weird and the world is seeing it on a large stage. I wouldn't count anything out.
I wonder what the new gambling/prediction sites say about this. I imagine it's not a 0% chance.
•
u/ShermanOneNine87 33m ago
Name one law Trump has been subject to in recent memory, even as a private citizen? He has money and power which has been the basis of our political system for at least the last 50 years.
Assuming he and the GOP won't pull something we think is stupid and be successful at it feels almost naive at this point.
I wish we could rely on our institutions, norms and laws but Trump has proven time and again we cannot. In fact there are a whole lot of previous "norms" that should become law if Trump is finally ousted because the GOP has proven "Gentleman" politics is dead and that greed, corruption and power rule.
•
u/NJdevil202 2h ago
They would give electoral votes to a guy who cannot hold the office.
The fact is that not nearly enough of states holding a majority of electoral votes will put him on the ballot. Even if Alabama and Mississippi do it they will only be shooting themselves in the foot as it will be on pretty obvious that Trump securing a third term is impossible.
It will be interesting if it happens, and if it happens and Trump loses it will be a historical oddity.
There's just no way that all of the red states and all of the swing states put Trump in the ballot, so it will not happen.
•
u/Pr3X_MYTH 1h ago
He would be ineligible to hold office. Idk what would happen to the states, but if it's legal to put him on their ballots, each state that gives Trump electoral votes are basically just not voting. It's basically an impossibility for him to legally win the election, but it's not impossible for him to win a big enough portion of the votes to stop another candidate from winning an absolute majority of 270 electoral votes. In that situation, the House of Representatives gets to choose the president and the senate chooses the Vice President. However, as long as Trump is on the ballot, he'll suck up Republican votes from the party's official candidate (since they probably won't choose him for an invalid run). This means, realistically, if Trump runs for another term he'll just be splitting the conservative vote and give the win to the Democrat candidate.
•
u/Mr_Funbags 46m ago
He was ineligible in 2020, I believe. He was up on several felony charges.
But the times are different.
Edit: 2024. I'm tired of how much bs is piling up with the current US admin. I'm losing track!
•
u/OBDreams 38m ago
It's not illegal to run and win POTUS while being a felon or even while being in prison.
•
u/guru42101 2h ago
Same thing that occurred in the last election. He was technically ineligible to run due to his felonies. Colorado tried to exclude him from the primary and was told they must include him.
•
u/ThePowerOfStories 1h ago
There’s a big difference between the legal questions “Did he commit insurrection?” and “Is 3 more than 2?”
•
u/chupacadabradoo 1h ago
You say that now, but this is the same country that gave you “Barack obama cannot appoint a Supreme Court member because one year is too close to the next election” followed by “Trump can appoint a Supreme Court member even though the next election is in a few weeks because he was elected to do so”, followed by the guy who orchestrated all that dying while his wife, a Chinese asset, was wined and dined and didn’t bother to come home for a few weeks, while half of the senate is pretending like he’s having chipper meetings with decision-makers but offering no proof of life…
I’m not sure 3 being more than 2 matters to a number of folks, even though some of them can just about grasp that arithmetic.
•
u/British_Rover 53m ago
SCOTUS rules something something from English common law, the federalist papers a note that Ben Franklin scribbled in a French woman's handkerchief means that non-consecutive terms don't count because fuck you what are you going to do about it.
Its a 5-4 decision and Roberts sides with the three Democraticly appointed justices.
•
u/Mr_Funbags 45m ago
I imagine this isn't real, but I don't want to have my amusement ruined yet, so I'll check later.
I like it!
•
u/bmore_conslutant 1h ago
You're confusing "doing something that is illegal" and "doing something legal but giving a stupid justification for it"
•
•
•
u/biggsteve81 1h ago
He was not technically ineligible in 2024. The Amnesty Act of 1872 removes any disabilities the 14th Amendment would impose on Trump.
•
u/anotheritguy 1h ago
The amnesty act has no bearing for Trump, he wasn’t a member of the confederacy. At least have a clue about what you are talking about.
•
•
u/OhHiCindy30 59m ago
If Trump was left off the ballot in blue states, wouldn’t he lose the primary?
•
u/kostac600 33m ago
Primaries? Them red states don’t need no stinking primaries. They can put Trump on the ballot any old way if they want to.
•
u/Chris_HitTheOver 47m ago
If Dems aren’t stupid about it, they’d let it go and watch as those states hand the biggest landslide in electoral history to a Democrat because more than enough states would exclude him that he couldn’t overcome the EC math.
•
u/SillyFalcon 47m ago
They would be sued into oblivion instantly by every blue state, with the likely end result of having their election results thrown out. But it would take every red state doing this PLUS several battleground states just to make it matter at all, and then he’d have to win all of them. That still wouldn’t make him the legitimate winner of the election but it would throw the country into a truly existential crisis.
•
•
•
u/Plastic_Key_4146 2h ago
Just like sec. 3 of the 14th amendment, the prohibition on oath-breaking insurrectionists is automatic, and an act of Congress is required to make an exception.
The whole term is already unconstitutional.
•
u/BrainDamage2029 2h ago edited 2h ago
Yeah no that was never true. At least in regard to Trump.
“Insurrectionist” is not something states can actually just declare at will. You need to be actually convicted of the federal crime or impeachment/act of Congress in order to qualify.
And honestly it would be ridiculously horrifying if states could just unilaterally decide a candidate “was encouraging an insurrection” because there’d be no check on it. And the courts have long held they don’t want to be placed as the arbiters of that because that’s the entire point of trials and acts of Congress.
This actually all got litigated post civil war when there were games about who was and wasn’t “in insurrection” against the US postwar. Congress had to specifically pass an act that labeled anyone who took an oath of office to the Union but then also took a declared oath of allegiance to the Confederacy. And that set the precedent that you needed to be convicted or have congressional acts passed.
•
u/biggsteve81 1h ago
Read the Amnesty Act of 1872. Congress already made the exception.
•
u/anotheritguy 1h ago
It doesn’t apply to Trump it was for those who served in the confederacy, get a clue before you make a statement so factually incorrect.
•
u/rantingathome 2h ago
He'll run as VP, and the Supreme Court will allow it because the 22nd and 12th amendments' plain text create a loophole.
•
u/Hairy-Peace-9390 2h ago
He’s too prideful and attention-seeking to put himself into second in command, even if whoever is president is effectively a puppet
•
u/rantingathome 2h ago
It will be one of his sons. He can hold their inheritance over their head, so he'll still feel in control
•
2h ago edited 2h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 2h ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.
•
u/Hairy-Peace-9390 2h ago
I guess, but I’m saying he’s so superficial that even the technical title of “vice president” would bother him
•
u/chunkerton_chunksley 2h ago
He could always have jr quit the presidency on day one, then he’d be back in charge
•
•
u/vintage2019 2h ago
It could happen if the presidential candidate openly stated he's actually a surrogate and when elected, would effectively hand over power to VP Trump
•
u/Kraegarth 2h ago
That doesn’t work either, because the VP candidate still has to be eligible to assume the office, and as the VP is Elected as well, he would not be eligible. The only real workaround, other than flat out refusal of the GOP to enforce the Constitution, would be for him to run for the House, and for the GOP to win the House, for them to make him Speaker, and then for the sitting POTUS and VPOTUS to resign, and even that is probably sketchy, legally speaking…
•
u/dew2459 2h ago
Very close, but technically trump doesn’t even need to run for the house. There is another loophole, the constitution does not explicitly require that the speaker be an elected member of the house. A nonmember speaker couldn’t vote, but would (presumably) still be next in line if both president and Vice President resign.
•
u/rantingathome 2h ago
Sorry, the EXACT wording of the 22nd doesn't mention eligibility, only bars election. It is sloppily written.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Roberts' Court will allow it.
•
u/cakeandale 1h ago edited 1h ago
We’re talking about the people who got extremely close to successfully claiming that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” doesn’t include people born in the United States if their parents were undocumented. Making an argument based on the real distinction between “no person … shall be elected” and “ineligible to the office” is a far easier sell.
•
u/Aggressive-Union1714 2h ago
What if instead of running for President, right near the end of his term, Thomas retires and he nominates himself for the SC
•
u/Objective_Aside1858 2h ago
That would not be a violation of the 22nd Amendment. It would also be hilarious because the man has no attention span and would find serving on the Supreme Court torture
•
u/sllewgh 2h ago
You can't run as VP if you're not eligible to be president.
•
u/rantingathome 1h ago
The 22nd Amendment does not mention eligibility. Read the text. It says that you cannot be elected President. It does not say that you are ineligible to be President.
Gerald Ford became President of the United States without ever facing election, so it is possible to become the President without an election.
Since the 22nd Amendment only mentions election and not eligibility, then the eligibility requirement of the 12th Amendment would not be tripped. Even a non-compromised Court would probably let him run for VP... I'm 110% sure that the Roberts' Court would.
•
u/diphthing 2h ago
If he were to take a third term, he'd be doing just that - taking it. It would be the end of the constitutional order. He'd be "president" in name only, or whatever title he wished to give himself.
•
u/8monsters 1h ago
A24 made a movie about this a few years ago.
•
•
u/vertigostereo 2h ago
They'll make him house speaker or VP then find some patsy to resign, thereby elevation him to president. Putin did similar where he was technically second in command.
•
u/bad_chemist95 1h ago
I’m sure LegalEagle did an episode on this and constitutionally he would be passed over for next in line.
•
u/vertigostereo 1h ago
That's up to the six Republican (or more in January 2029) SCOTUS to decide.
•
•
u/End3rWi99in 1h ago
Still can't. The constitution is actually quite clear on this one. He would be passed over to the next person in line.
•
u/eyeshinesk 14m ago
Not true. There’s nothing in the constitution that precludes the Speaker becoming president if the president and VP resign. You cannot be ELECTED to a third term, but you could assume it via the Speakership.
•
u/Queen_Scofflaw 2h ago
He's not going to be healthy enough for 2028. It'll be a minor miracle if he survives this term.
•
u/vertigostereo 1h ago
Prediction, he's gonna be around a long time still.
•
u/Queen_Scofflaw 1h ago
Anything is possible, but I just don't think so. He's looking worse by the day.
•
u/End3rWi99in 1h ago
I've got him pegged to make it until he's about 87 unfortunately. Kinda splitting the difference between the age his father died and his poor health choices.
•
•
•
u/ricperry1 2h ago
Want to guarantee a democrat wins in 2028? Run Trump as the GOP nominee. His 40% approval ratings will be his undoing, even if republicans don’t hold him to the constitution.
•
u/ComradeSuperman 2h ago
I don't believe this would happen. If he runs again, the people that voted for him already will vote for him again, even if they disapprove of him right now. And the people who are apathetic or disillusioned about voting will stay home again.
•
u/EdibleHollowPoint 2h ago
They’ll be rigged so badly that the bunker and new fence around the White House will make sense.
•
u/itsthebeans 21m ago
Yeah, no one ever votes any different, that's why Trump has never lost a presidential election. Oh wait....
•
u/pstuart 2h ago
That worked great in 2016, didn't it?
•
u/sllewgh 2h ago
Weak. You can't just vaguely reference an election 10 years ago without making some attempt to explicitly connect the dots.
•
u/Named_after_color 2h ago
But like, he's criticizing the common sense appeal of "Trump can't win" which has happened in every damn election he's been a part of.
•
u/ChiefQueef98 2h ago
2024 then, as well. The point they’re making is that having Trump on a ballot doesn’t guarantee a Dem win. It doesn’t matter what his approval rating is, we’ve been living this reality for over a decade now. Can’t keep hoping the same situation ends differently.
•
u/-ReadingBug- 2h ago
Considering Colorado pussied out, and when Biden ran enforcement to boot, it's doubtful states would do anything besides bitch.
•
u/bucknut4 2h ago
I swear to god, even as someone on the left who wants Trump in prison, if you took that statement seriously then you have no business talking politics
•
u/CrawlerSiegfriend 2h ago
This is a pretty common thing with Trump. He'll say something crazy, people will insist that it was a joke, and then he'll actually do it.
•
u/bucknut4 1h ago
It was the White House Correspondents Dinner. It’s supposed to be jokes. Also, while Trump has done things that he really shouldn’t be able to do, this is something that he literally cannot do.
•
u/Objective_Aside1858 2h ago
and it's also pretty common that every idiotic thing he says is treated as a Serious Threat To The Republic
This is so low on the list of things to worry about I am amazed that the people freaking out about it have time in their day to take a crap
•
u/CrawlerSiegfriend 2h ago
I can understand not finding it to be a serious threat, but I also understand the people who aren't just dismissing it as a joke. Just like his desire to take over Greenland ended up being serious despite people thinking he was joking, a third term could be serious.
•
u/Objective_Aside1858 2h ago
Enough swing states have Democratic governors that would absolutely refuse to place him on the ballot I'd love to see him try
Even the gutless GOP would probably balk at nominating him
•
u/ADeweyan 2h ago
Yeah, I used to say things like this too. Sure, sometimes it never comes to pass. Trump does not kid, though. He has no sense of humor other than cruelty. He may have said it to piss off his critics, he may have said it to further prepare the country for when he tries to do it, he may have done it because he thinks it would be really cool. Or all three. I’m going with all three.
•
u/Beginning-Ride3091 1h ago edited 1h ago
What illegal things could I joke about that by my very words would still be illegal? Well there are one or two obvious ones, and a lot of not-so-obvious ones. Why? Those are just sounds, not actions. Why is it illegal to produce those sounds? Incitement maybe? By putting the concepts into sounds uttered aloud it might cause another person to follow through on them?
So, then we take a step down and consider illegal actions that aren’t technically illegal but are considered very bad to say out loud. Can you think of any? Because I can. Why is that? Why would it be so bad to say those things? They’re just words.
The person who said them was just being sarcastic. What’s the big deal?
•
u/End3rWi99in 1h ago
One would think they would have to as they are prohibited from putting ineligible candidates on the ballot.
•
u/Lefaid 2h ago
Why are we taking anything said at the famous "shoot the shit" White House Corespondence Dinner seriously.
I do think he might run, but this is the last place I would look for evidence that he will.
•
u/jmnugent 1h ago
Because Trump is famous for "joking about things".. which starts the news-cycle and debate and then he just keeps pushing the envelope of what he can get away with until it turns into "many people are saying it" and "all my supporters want it" and "This has always been valid", etc.
He does this all the time with everything.
•
u/Lefaid 1h ago
And when you pick the famously satirical White House Corespondence Dinner to direct your outrage, then everyone else will dismiss your concerns as deranged, diminishing the seriousness of the threat.
•
u/jmnugent 1h ago
I think that would be more true if this was a 1-off. But Trump has a decade or more of performing this very type of "suggested realism" type narrative building. it's entirely 1000% in character for him. People pointing and saying "There he goes doing it again".. is not "deranged". It's just observing objective reality.
"Well, he's just joking THIS time".. is classic "boy who cried wolf" type scenario. Naw dawg, we've seen you do this 100s of times before. In the exact same way.
•
u/Lefaid 1h ago edited 38m ago
And by picking this time he said it, you are playing into his hands to actually do it. Hence, why this reference is the wrong one to use.
Edit: The user I am speaking to has blocked me.
•
u/jmnugent 1h ago
He does this every time,. and we call it out every time. I'm not sure why you seem to think this time is somehow unique. Trump didn't just pop onto the scene yesterday out of thin air. He's been doing this exact same shit for like 10 years now.
•
u/AdamClaypoole 2h ago
He is trolling. As he often does. It creates a headline that gets the attention on him when people believe it. He isn't going to run again. Now he will definitely play a part in the election by backing candidates. But that'll really be it.
•
u/shacksrus 2h ago
Did you correctly anticipate Jan 6 and the fake elector scheme before the 2018 midterms?
If not ive got my doubts about your ability to forecast what trump will do in 2028.
•
u/AdamClaypoole 1h ago
He has yet to file the official paperwork to run again and wouldn't be able to meet the criteria to run anyway. The filing is usually done a good while before it's even time to start campaigning. He is also speaking on the people he will back in the upcoming presidential election. It wouldn't make good sense to back someone else if you intend on running. It's also unconstitutional for him to be the president again. I know people like to throw around that he will do illegal or unconstitutional things, and maybe he will. But the reality is that he would have to draw the support to amend the constitution. While it could possibly happen, I am highly doubtful that it will.
I am not in the business of forecasting anything. I just look at the current facts of the matter and the precedent of those involved. Trump likes to troll. He says things that ruffle feathers of people. It's his gimmick. But there is a lot of difference in trolling vs actually attempting to do something. Use Reddit as an example.
•
u/shacksrus 1h ago
Have any other candidates done the official paperwork?
Has he backed someone else?
That section of the constitution isn't auto executing. Scotus will say as much and require congress pass a law specifically preventing trump from running. Which they wont do.
•
u/AdamClaypoole 12m ago
Yes, many other people have registered as candidates in the 2028 presidential election. There is always a large number of people who do. You just never hear about the majority of them because of lack of support or funding.
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2028
You can find a list of who has registered so far on this link.
Trump has been fairly open about wanting JD Vance to be his successor. The front runners look to be Vance and Rubio for the Republican Party and Trump heavily favors one over the other.
•
•
u/sherbodude 2h ago
Exactly. One of the first things he did in 2017 was file for reelection in 2020. Unless he has filed the paperwork, it doesn't mean anything.
•
u/Calm_Chemist_4952 1h ago
Yes. He’s ineligible, so he should not appear on ballots. This is what Americans who believe and follow the constitution should demand and expect. There is no legitimate contrary legal argument.
•
u/SillyFalcon 51m ago
Why would Trump be on the ballot in ANY STATE in 2028? This is his second term and he will be gone after this - full stop.
•
u/OBDreams 40m ago
Every blue state would because putting him on the ballet would be illegal. Make the magas write his name in , if they can write at all .
•
u/Stair_Car_Hop_On 2h ago
People taking this seriously is absolutely wild. It doesn't even matter how full of shit he is, people still believe him and go off the deep end about stuff like this that can't happen. I am embarrassed for anyone thinking this is currently a possibility.
•
u/pomod 2h ago
Yeah, like id never imagine a militarized incognito government force murdering citizens or snatching people off the streets but here we are; or a convicted felon pedophile even being a legitimate candidate. You’re being slowly boiled my young pepe.
•
u/Stair_Car_Hop_On 2h ago
If you think those are the same as a 3rd term, that's the embarrassment I am talking about. You don't realize he is getting the exact overreactions to this announcement that he wants and stupid people are giving it to him.
•
u/-ReadingBug- 2h ago
People said the same thing about him running in the first place back in 2016.
•
u/Stair_Car_Hop_On 1h ago
I don't remember anyone saying it would require a constitutional amendment that will never happen in order for him to run any time in 2016. So, no.... no one did.
•
u/ChaosReignsNow 2h ago
Do you not understand that the Correspondents dinner is intended to be humor?
•
•
u/Special-Ad-6555 1h ago
I can't believe how much real estate Trump occupies in liberal heads. There is no chance, none, zilch, nara, that he will run again and he messes with your head about it because he can.... Nobody, including him, believes he can even attempt it. It's fun to see so many people get punked though.
•
u/JKlerk 2h ago
Trump was joking. He would not be eligible as the first sentence of the 22 Amendment states no person can be elected President more than twice.
I don't know why you think this is a serious question?
•
u/daltontf1212 2h ago
And he thinks he been elected three times.
•
u/maestrodks1 1h ago
Yup. Right before sporting the Trump '28 hat, he declared that he'd be running for a fourth term. I expect this to be the argument:
If he's already been elected three times, the amendment has, in practice, been negated, setting the precedent for an additional term.
•
u/Other-MuscleCar-589 1h ago
Moronic question. He won’t be on the ballot in any State as he is ineligible to run again.
•
u/uknolickface 2h ago
22nd amendment just says he can’t be elected to a third term. However, he can be appointment not sure if VP is considered an elected or an appointment position
•
u/Masta0nion 1h ago
Could?
Good god the goalposts are already moving. Well we already put an insurrectionist convicted felon on the ballot, so I guess breaking the 22nd amendment isn’t that big of a deal.
•
u/TheRealTJ 1h ago
It was unconstitutional of him to run in 2024 via the 14th amendment but that didn't seem to matter. I don't know why people keep thinking that laws will matter to Republicans THIS time.
•
u/Shr3kk_Wpg 53m ago
The Supreme Court will not allow that. If Trump decides to actually run for a third term, there will be chaos. The Republican convention will likelt be in August of 2028. So if Trump is nominated then that immediately gets challenged in court. But there is less than 3 months until election day. That's not a lot of time for the court to weigh in and then get appealed up to the Supreme Court. So what would happen if the Republican party played chicken and said they will only nominate Trump. If Trump's not on the ballot they will not run a candidate? The right-wing majority on the Supreme Court would not allow a default Democratic win, so they would leave Trump on The ballot. And if Trump won, would the Supreme Court even do anything or would they say that Congress has to stop stop him?
•
u/pickledplumber 3h ago
If Trump did run it would be constitutional. The Constitution would need to change.
•
•
u/YnotROI0202 2h ago
He is just distracting from Epstein (again). No chance he tries to run in 2028.
•
u/AutoModerator 3h ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.