Taking Biden off the ballot in Texas (like taking Trump off the ballot in Colorado) will almost certainly be irrelevant to the outcome of the presidential election, but it will contribute to an environment where approximately half the country considers the outcome of the 2024 election illegitimate no matter who wins.
Even keeping Trump on the ballot everywhere would not lead to him conceding quietly if he lost, but taking him off the ballot is going to make things much worse. Like it or not, he really could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and still have the support of Republican voters, and they (like anybody else) will not be content to have the court system tell them that they can’t vote for him.
But it’s not. There is no question: it’s explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is a political question. Or just abandoning the Constitution is an option. And of course the Constitution gives Congress the political power to re-add someone to the ballot by a political vote. The Court did what they should (except I think there is legitimate legal question about whether this should only have applied to the final ballot instead of primaries). What is done next is the political part.
Taking Biden off the ballot in Texas (like taking Trump off the ballot in Colorado) will almost certainly be irrelevant to the outcome of the presidential election, but it will contribute to an environment where approximately half the country considers the outcome of the 2024 election illegitimate no matter who wins.
Even keeping Trump on the ballot everywhere would not lead to him conceding quietly if he lost, but taking him off the ballot is going to make things much worse. Like it or not, he really could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and still have the support of Republican voters, and they (like anybody else) will not be content to have the court system tell them that they can’t vote for him.
So courts should just violate the law to keep trump on the ballot? Why even have courts?
Congress can overturn it or you can pass a constitutional amendment changing the Constitution to fix it.
IMO this issue should be considered a political question by the courts, based on the notion that there exist some questions best resolved through the political process, in which voters can approve or correct the challenged action by voting for or against those involved in the decision.
But it’s not. There is no question: it’s explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is a political question. Or just abandoning the Constitution is an option. And of course the Constitution gives Congress the political power to re-add someone to the ballot by a political vote. The Court did what they should (except I think there is legitimate legal question about whether this should only have applied to the final ballot instead of primaries). What is done next is the political part.