I’ve been wondering if there could be a relatively simple solution to cut through much of the controversy about the role of the 14th amendment with respect to ballot access and obviate bogus talking points.
States have a lot of leeway in drafting the rules for ballot access, so why not require a simple questionnaire of any candidate, to be answered honestly under penalty of perjury (and say a 10 year prison term).
For presidential candidates it could go something like:
- Will you be at least 35 years old on inauguration day? [“No” disqualifies]
- Are you a natural born citizen? [“No” disqualifies]
- Have you served two full terms as President? [“Yes” disqualifies]
- Has a conviction by the Senate after impeachment barred you from future office? [“Yes” disqualifies]
- Has any court made a finding of fact that you engaged in an insurrection, and is that finding currently not reversed on appeal? [“Yes” disqualifies]
- Has any court made a finding of fact that you gave aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States, and is that finding currently not reversed on appeal? [“Yes” disqualifies]
The point is that these are simple, factual questions, so there is no question of due process or criminal verdicts or any other such nonsense to muddy the waters.
And codifying them makes it easier for a trial court to punt on constitutional issues to more efficiently focus on direct factual evidence. Conversely, appellate courts could weigh in on the legality of the questionnaire itself without being distracted by findings of fact in some random case.
And of course it would require someone such as Trump to acknowledge the validity of court rulings.