copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2024-03-04): The Illinois State Board of Elections dismissed the objection, partially on the grounds that it did not have authority to decide constitutional questions. But last week, a Cook County circuit judge reversed that decision and ordered Trump removed from the Illinois primary ballot, although she put her decision on hold pending further appeals in state courts as well as the pending U.S. Supreme Court decision. [...] "The Supreme Court couldn’t exonerate Trump because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, so instead the Justices neutered our Constitution’s built-in defense against insurrectionists and said the facts don’t matter," he said in a statement. [...] David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, said the decision effectively put an end to state-level challenges to Trump’s candidacy based on the 14 th Amendment. But he said the issue will almost certainly come up again if Trump wins the general election in November.
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2023-12-19): In a stunning and unprecedented decision, the Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot, ruling that he isn’t an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment’s "insurrectionist ban." [...] Allies of the former president said they were stunned by the Colorado high court’s decision to remove Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot, sources told CNN. [...] • Colorado state law allows voters to challenge Trump’s eligibility under the federal constitution’s "insurrectionist ban."
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2024-02-08): Because the decision remains frozen until a final ruling from the justices, Trump currently remains on the Colorado ballot and elsewhere. Officials in Maine have also sought to remove Trump from the state’s ballot but are also awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision in the Colorado case. [...] Trump is not covered by the ballot disqualification provision of the 14th Amendment at all because the president is not an "officer of the United States," his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6 do not constitute an "insurrection or rebellion" and only Congress can enforce this provision, not state courts. [...] If the Supreme Court agrees that states can lawfully kick Trump off the ballot under the 14th Amendment, he won’t be immediately disqualified in every state. Instead, the issue will return to individual states.
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2023-08-15): Does the Constitution permit Donald Trump to be on the 2024 Presidential ballot? The question arises because of a long-neglected part of the 14th Amendment. Section Three provides that no person can hold political office if, having taken an oath to support the Constitution as a state or federal official, they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion." Section Three was designed to respond to the danger that former Confederate states might (as indeed they did) elect former Confederates to Congress and pursue politics as the continuation of war by other means. But the century and a half after the Civil War, brought no insurrections, and Section Three lay moribund, an object of only historical interest. January 6, 2021 changed that. At least, it did if you accept the arguments put forward in the University of Pennsylvania law Review by leading conservative originalists William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen and in an article by Federalist Society co-founder Steven Calabresi. Trump engaged in insurrection, they argue, and declaring him ineligible for the Presidency is no more than the Constitution demands. "[T]he case is not even close," Baude and Paulsen declare. "All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so." The counterargument, offered by another prominent conservative originalist, Michael McConnell, is that excluding Trump from the ballot is extreme, divisive, and anti-democratic. We should read Section Three as narrowly as we can, he says, in order to "allow the American people to vote for the candidates of their choice."
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2024-03-04): The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ruled that states cannot remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 election ballot, overturning a Colorado court ruling that said he was ineligible to run for office because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack. The high-stakes decision in Trump v. Anderson, issued without the customary session in the courtroom, comes just a day before Colorado voters are poised to cast their ballots during the Super Tuesday primaries. At the heart of the dispute was the Colorado supreme court's ruling in December, which found Trump ineligible to run based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, barring individuals who engaged in insurrection from holding office. Trump appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state’s decision would disenfranchise millions of voters and could plunge the electoral process into disarray if other states followed suit. [...] In the lead-up to Monday's decision, the Justices appeared inclined to uphold Trump's right to appear on the ballot, citing concerns over the potential disruption to the electoral process. During oral arguments, a broad consensus emerged across ideological lines, with liberal and conservative Justices expressing apprehension about the implications of barring a candidate who had garnered significant support from voters.
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2021-10-15): We asked a spokesperson for Scalise for evidence to back his claim and did not hear back. But his statement mirrors the argument by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who in December sued four battleground states that went for Biden, arguing that their election procedures violated their state laws. "Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania usurped their legislatures' authority and unconstitutionally revised their state's election statutes," Paxton wrote. He asked the court to bar those states from sending their votes to the Electoral College. [...] The arguments by Paxton and Scalise are based on what election law scholars call the independent legislature doctrine. The gist of it is that Article 2 of the Constitution empowers state Legislatures specifically to choose how electors are selected and to set the time, place and manner for congressional elections.
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2024-03-15): Supreme Court rules states cannot remove Trump from ballot for insurrection on Mar 4, 2024 at 12:09 pm The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states cannot disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. In an unsigned opinion, a majority of the justices held that only Congress – and not the states – can enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted in the wake of the Civil War to disqualify individuals from holding office who had previously served in the federal or state government before the war but then supported the Confederacy, against candidates for federal offices. [...] The dispute leading to Monday’s opinion began last year in a state court in Colorado. A group of voters in that state argued that Trump was ineligible to appear on the ballot under Section 3, which provides (as relevant here) that no one "shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State," if that person had previously sworn, "as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States," to support the Constitution but then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the federal government.
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2024-03-04): By — William Brangham William Brangham By — Ali Schmitz Ali Schmitz Leave your feedback Share Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/supreme-court-says-only-congress-not-states-can-remove-trump-from-presidential-ballots Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Tumblr Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Transcript Audio The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that individual states cannot remove former President Donald Trump from their ballots based on the 14th Amendment. In an unsigned opinion, the court said only Congress, not states, can disqualify presidential candidates under the Constitution’s so-called "insurrection clause." William Brangham reports. Read the Full Transcript Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors. Amna Nawaz: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that the 14th Amendment does not allow individual states to remove former President Donald Trump from their ballots. Geoff Bennett: In an unsigned opinion, the court said only that Congress, not states, can disqualify presidential candidates under the Constitution's so-called Insurrection Clause.The former president celebrated the decision.Donald Trump, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: Essentially, you cannot take somebody out of a race because an opponent would like to have it that way.
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2023-05-04): Texas Secretary of State, Secretary Nelson Announces Structural Changes in Texas Secretary of State's Elections Division, March 10, 2023 [...] Texas Secretary of State, Secretary Nelson Announces Structural Changes in Texas Secretary of State's Elections Division, March 2023 [...] PolitiFact, Trump tweets that 58,000 noncitizens voted in Texas. That hasn't been proven, Jan. 28, 2019
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2023-09-25): Because the presidential election happens nationwide yet is so decentralized, individual state officials could theoretically make their own determinations about whether Trump should be on the ballot, based on their state statutes. [...] Gardner — who personally would like to see Trump disqualified from ballots nationwide — says the issue would ideally settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in time for the upcoming election cycle. [...] The following day, Scanlan — whose state is just months away from its traditional early presidential primary — held a press conference to dismiss claims that he has the power to take Trump's name off the ballot. Doing so on a state-by-state basis would bring "chaos, confusion, anger and frustration," he said, adding that the proper venue to decide that question is the U.S. Supreme Court.
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2024-02-06): What the 14th Amendment says about whether Trump can be on the ballot This week the Supreme Court considers its most consequential case involving a presidential election since Bush v. Gore in 2000. Officials in both Colorado and Maine have ruled that Donald Trump is ineligible for their ballots because he violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — by engaging in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. The Supreme Court will review the Colorado decision, with oral arguments set for Thursday. (Maine has effectively put its own case on hold as it awaits a ruling on Colorado.) [...] The burden in the case that the Supreme Court takes up this week appears to lie with those who would remove Trump from the ballot. Trump could avoid this outcome even if he succeeds on only one of the several relevant questions. From there, a big question is what the ruling would mean for the 2024 election.
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2024-02-08): A longshot legal bid in multiple US states to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 US presidential ballot has won in Colorado and Maine. The strategy involves trying to block Mr Trump from the primary ballot by invoking a rarely used provision of the US Constitution. [...] Maine's top election official - Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows - then ruled on 28 December that Mr Trump could not run for president in the state, also citing the 14th Amendment.
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2023-11-02): Despite being recently indicted on dozens of federal charges and state charges related to attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, improperly hold onto classified national security records, and use hush money payments to influence the 2016 election, former President Trump has stated that he will continue to run for president in the 2024 election even if convicted of criminal misconduct related to his conduct in office, leading to a growing realization that his campaign will directly implicate Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Indeed, at least one state is actively examining Trump’s eligibility. But it is clear that all 50 states plus the District of Columbia routinely exclude candidates who are ineligible to appear on ballots, including in several instances presidential candidates who don’t satisfy the constitutional qualifications for office. If Trump is found to be ineligible to run for office under Section 3 by a court or a state election official, then removing him from that ballot because of that ineligibility is supported by historical practice and precedent in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2024-06-08): The post wrongly states that Texas’ constitution would knock Trump off the ballot. [...] "Trump can and will be on the ballot in Texas," Taylor said. [...] A Threads post said, "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution."
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2024-06-13): No, Texas Constitution doesn't bar Trump from running for president | Fact check The claim: Texas Constitution prohibits Trump from running for president [...] "Trump can't be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution," The X post's caption says.
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2020-12-03): Voting is fundamental to our constitutional republic, and your civic participation is critical to our success as a state.
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2021-05-26): Election law experts disagree with Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw's recent claims. Lisa Manheim is quoted. (Source: CNN Politics) [...] A new lawsuit filed by Texas would interfere with voting processes in states across the country if it wasn't doomed to fail, writes UW Law Professor Lisa Manheim. (Source: The Washington Post)
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2024-03-27): But recent cases have demonstrated how confusing disenfranchisement laws and policies can be for both voters and government officials. The prosecution of Crystal Mason, a Black woman in Texas, was in the national spotlight when she was sentenced to five years in prison after being convicted of attempting to vote while ineligible.9 Mason was serving a supervised release sentence after her release from prison for felony tax fraud when she cast a provisional ballot in the 2016 election. Throughout the trial, Mason maintained she did not know she was ineligible to vote, and her probation officer acknowledged he never told Mason she was ineligible. Mason appealed her conviction, and in May 2022 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that the trial court "erred by failing to require proof that the Appellant had actual knowledge that it was a crime for her to vote while on supervised release" and sent the case back for review.10
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2020-12-08): Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court. The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted. "Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections," said Attorney General Paxton. "Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error."
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2024-03-07): The Supreme Court Says States Can’t Keep Trump Off the Ballot On Monday March 4th, the Supreme Court reversed Colorado’s decision to remove President Trump from the ballot. The Court unanimously held that individual states cannot bar insurrectionists from holding Federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Five Justices went further, ruling that Congress alone may enforce Section 3. In this episode, constitutional scholars Mark Graber of the University of Maryland Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the Court’s 9-0 decision to avoid a chaotic "patchwork" of state-level ballot eligibility decisions and the 5-4 majority’s view that Section 3 requires Congress to act before an insurrectionist may be disqualified from office. [...] Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast.
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2024-02-08): The latest news on Supreme Court arguments about removing Trump from the ballot: [...] Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican, told Fox News shortly after the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that, "maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing eight million people to cross the border since he’s been president, disrupting our state far more than anything anyone else has done in recent history." [...] How the Constitution could — or could not — keep Trump off the 2024 ballot
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2023-03-24): No citizen shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election because of his failure to comply with any test or device in any State with respect to which the determinations have been made under the third sentence of subsection (b) of this section or in any political subdivision of such State (as such subdivision existed on the date such determinations were made with respect to such State), though such determinations were not made with respect to such subdivision as a separate unit, or in any political subdivision with respect to which such determinations have been made as a separate unit, unless the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issues a declaratory judgment under this section. [...] Amendment by Pub. L. 107–252 effective upon appointment of all members of the Election Assistance Commission under section 20923 of this title, see section 21134(a) of this title.
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2024-03-01): TX - 3,877,868 Democratic votes cast vs 4,685,047 Republican votes cast = 38 Republican electors [...] Nothing in the Constitution prevents your State from using something other than your State’s popular vote results to appoint electors.
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2022-09-28): "I still agree with our original decision handed down in December, when we recognized that the specific powers given to the Attorney General by the Texas Constitution do not include the ability to initiate criminal proceedings—even in cases involving alleged violations of the Election Code," Judge Scott Walker wrote. [...] "Despite unprecedented pressure on the judiciary by state and national officials, the long standing structure of the Texas Constitution remains. The Rule of Law prevailed," he wrote. "Our constitution very clearly and deliberately placed the power to charge someone with a crime, in the hands of local elected district and county attorneys. Despite this, recent Texas attorneys general have tried to take this power for themselves, on matters related to elections, abortion and on prosecution against other individual rights. But our constitution reserves all powers not enumerated to the People, and thanks to the judiciary with this ruling, the People retain their rights." [...] "I share the concerns that citizens have about election law violations. Frankly, I am deeply concerned as well. However, if citizens do not like that the Texas Constitution gave specific powers to the Attorney General and that these powers do not include the power to unilaterally prosecute crimes, the remedy is a constitutional amendment—something the legislature could propose and the citizens could vote to ratify," he wrote. "The remedy is not for the courts to water down the Texas Constitution from the bench. To do so would be a violation of our judicial oath."
Claim: "Trump can’t be on the Texas ballot because of our state constitution." (Threads, 2024-06-08)
Evidence (2024-01-30): "California must stand on the right side of history," Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis wrote to Secretary of State Shirley Weber in a Dec. 20 letter. "California is obligated to determine if Trump is ineligible for the California ballot for the same reasons described in Anderson (the Colorado case). The Colorado decision can be the basis for a similar decision here in our state. The constitution is clear: you must be 35 years old and not be an insurrectionist." [...] "Trump may not appear on the presidential primary or general election ballots because, after taking the oath of office to support the Constitution, he engaged in rebellion and insurrection against the Constitution of the United States and gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the same and is therefore disqualified from the presidency (and any other public office) under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment," the voters, represented by Free Speech for People, said in their objection. The group said state law gives the commission the authority and "obligation" to determine the constitutional eligibility of a presidential candidate, and it urged the panel to render a decision about whether Trump can be listed on the ballot before Jan. 29.