• Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      ·
      7 months ago

      Because if they couldn’t, elected officials would just have their opponents brought up on weak technical charges just to get them disqualfied.

      “Sir, you have been found guilty of jaywalking. As this is the third time you’ve been charged with this crime, that bumps it up to a felony under the ijustmadethisup act of 1793. The fine will be $50+ court costs. I also have to let you know that because you are a convicted felon, you are no longer allowed to run for office and have been removed from the ballot. Have a nice day.”

      Not quite that silly, but you get the idea.

        • hddsx@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          7 months ago

          You do realize Trump is kind of historic right? Imagine we went from Obama to Biden. Then, try to think of a single president who just went “I’m president so I can do what I want”

            • hddsx@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              7 months ago

              Okay, okay. Let’s dispense with the silly insults.

              Trump is historic because of his complete and utter disregard for the law - even Nixon knew when it was over. Trump has led about 30% of the populace to believe that election integrity was an issue - but only for the 2020 election. Beyond the general disregard for the common good that the Republicans previously celebrated, he has given them a direction for utter chaos.

              Regardless of if you like him or not, he is historic and will be remembered. One can only imagine that Smith will be equally remembered

      • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Not quite that silly, but you get the idea.

        You joke but this bullshit tactic has been historically used to suppress voter’s rights for over a century. Charge someone with a bullshit felony and they lose their right to vote forever.

        • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Right, but I’m talking about running for office. Using this tactic to prevent people from running for office is an entirely different, and much bigger, can of worms.

    • PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      While everyone is right about the reasoning, no one brought up the relevant historical example: Eugene Debs in the 1920 Election… which is unfortunate because it’s a good one.

      Euegen Debs was a socialist candidate who ran in the 1920 elections after being jailed by Wilson’s Sedition Act of 1918 for opposing the US joining WW1 and the accompanying draft.

      • sanosuke001@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        I was not familiar with this historical fact, thanks for the info! That’s definitely a good example of why it shouldn’t bar someone outright.

    • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      If felons can’t vote (they should be able to), they sure as shit shouldn’t be able to run for office.

        • hddsx@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Wait, why not?

          Edit: Oh, right. This isn’t the Honorable Judge Cannon. These are state felonies presided by a judge who understands the government functions

        • Chocrates@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          He is a Floridian though, doesn’t it take a “simple” meeting with DeSantis’s hand picked committee to get his voting rights back?

          • hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Nope. I’m not sure which law states that a convicted felon can’t vote, but I know for sure it takes quite a few years to change such foundational laws and this will not happen quickly enough.

            It can happen for the election after Biden v Trump tho.

            • Chocrates@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Florida just changed their laws on that. As others have said though that Florida laws require it to be finished so if Trump appeals I think that is right out.

          • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            That’s an interesting question since it isn’t a Florida felony that he was convicted of. However, the Florida law about felony voting already has several caveats. It only takes effect after the felony stuff is “done” as in time-served, parole done, and relevant fines paid. Then you have the committee approval which for Trump would likely be a high-five.

    • nova@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      Because if you’re able to invalidate your opponent’s candidacy for president, it makes a fascist takeover that much easier. Just change the laws so that any political opposition can’t run against you, and bam your party has indefinite control.

    • Peer@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Because when voters feel the punishment was unjust, they can choose to ignore it. For example: Nelson Mandela.

    • sanosuke001@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      So, let’s say a political party is somehow at fault for charging and getting a verdict of an opponent. This would make it very easy to block anyone from running against the party in power if they so choose.

      The founding fathers saw how much of an issue this would be so limited the reasons for blocking someone from running for office. I don’t think hush money is a good reason (though, doing so to block info that would make him lose an election I think should be but that will be up to the court)

      • warm@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Isn’t there a bigger problem than who can run for president at that point?