Even before President Joe Biden’s long-speculated withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, allies of former President Donald Trump floated the possibility of suing to block Democrats from having anyone other than Biden on the ballot in November.
But election administration and legal experts said the timing of Biden’s exit on Sunday makes it unlikely that any Republican ballot access challenges will succeed, with some calling the idea “ridiculous” and “frivolous.” Democrats are on safe legal ground as they identify a new standard-bearer, they say, because the party hasn’t officially chosen its nominee. That typically occurs with a vote of delegates at the party’s convention.
“It’s ridiculous for people to talk about ‘replacing Biden.’ He hasn’t been nominated yet,” said Richard Winger, a leading expert on state ballot access laws and the longtime editor of the “Ballot Access News” newsletter.
You decided to go back to assigning me others opinions instead of the ones I explained to you as mine.
No more so than you did of me. I was trying to provide in my last comment the context under which I had been engaging with other people that was informing my responses prior your clarifications.
edit: The SCOTUS ruling, dummy. Wiki even links the appeal. You’re better off not trying to be king of the idiots.
Lemmy seems to be stripping the trailing ‘.’ off my wikipedia link link in my prior comment, but the text “scotus” does not appear in either of the links I provided. But here’s another article that affirms my statement that SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal.
Maybe you could provide a link to the ruling you’re talking about, because I can’t find anything that says the SCOTUS did anything other than decline to hear the appeal of the 2016 lawsuit brought by Bernie supporters.
