Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

12 

TRUMP v. ANDERSON 

Per Curiam 

others  might  require  a  heightened  showing.  Certain  evi-
dence  (like  the  congressional  Report  on  which  the  lower
courts relied here) might be admissible in some States but 
inadmissible hearsay in others.  Disqualification might be
possible  only  through  criminal  prosecution,  as  opposed  to
expedited civil proceedings, in particular States.  Indeed, in 
some States—unlike Colorado (or Maine, where the secre-
tary of state recently issued an order excluding former Pres-
ident Trump from the primary ballot)—procedures for ex-
cluding  an  ineligible  candidate  from  the  ballot  may  not 
exist at all.  The result could well be that a single candidate 
would be declared ineligible in some States, but not others,
based on the same conduct (and perhaps even the same fac-
tual record).

The “patchwork” that would likely result from state en-
forcement  would  “sever  the  direct  link  that  the  Framers 
found so critical between the National Government and the 
people of the United States” as a whole.  U. S. Term Limits, 
514 U. S., at 822.  But in a Presidential election “the impact
of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast”—
or,  in  this  case,  the  votes  not allowed  to  be  cast—“for  the 
various candidates in other States.”  Anderson, 460 U. S., 
at  795.  An  evolving  electoral  map  could  dramatically 
change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the 
country, in different ways and at different times.  The dis-
ruption would be all the more acute—and could nullify the 
votes of millions and change the election result—if Section
3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted.
Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such
chaos—arriving  at  any  time  or  different  times,  up  to  and 
perhaps beyond the Inauguration. 

* 

* 
For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section
3  against  federal  officeholders  and  candidates  rests  with
Congress and not the States.  The judgment of the Colorado 

*