877
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The trial over an effort in Minnesota to keep former President Donald Trump off of the 2024 ballot began Thursday at the state Supreme Court as a similar case continued in Colorado.

The lawsuits in both states allege Trump should be barred from the 2024 ballot for his conduct leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. They argue Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says no one who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after swearing an oath to support and defend the Constitution can hold office.

A group of Minnesota voters, represented by the election reform group Free Speech for People, sued in September to remove Trump from the state ballot under the 14th Amendment provision. The petitioners include former Minnesota Secretary of State Joan Growe and former state Supreme Court Justice Paul H. Anderson.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

Conviction might be helpful, but is not actually necessary for this to work.

[-] xJREB@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

I'm confused about this as well. Why is this trial happening before one that would bring criminal charges for the insurrection to lock him up? If he lost such a trial, he would be automatically banned from running, right? Or is the required evidence different for this one and that's why they go with it?

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 8 months ago

I think it's about the burden of proof required.

In the states cases it's just "beyond reasonable doubt" that is required. I.e. would a reasonable person (one with a brain and no particular axe to grind), believe that there is an equal to or greater than 50% possibility that he did commit the crime. If they do then it meets the burden of "beyond reasonable doubt".

It doesn't violate his rights because he hasn't actually been accused of the crime, it is just the courts stating that they think it's more likely than not that he did commit the crime.

He will probably double down and demand a criminal case, but that doesn't matter because there's already one in progress anyway. It also won't get his name put back on the ballot.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago

You're totally correct, but you got a term backwards. You're thinking "preponderance of evidence". That's the one where it's just "better than even odds".

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is for criminal cases, and is "if there's any reasonable explanation other than them doing it then they're innocent".

[-] Tbird83ii@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Not guilty. Innocent refers to the fact that a defendant could have in no way committed the crime, where as not guilty does not presume innocence, but states that the prosecution has not met it's burden to prove guilt.

Additionally, for context, the three burdens of proof are:

  • beyond reasonable doubt - most likely in criminal cases where prosecution has the burden

  • clear and convincing evidence (typically in custody/family law)

  • propondedance of evidence - most likely in civil cases where the plaintiff has the burden

And then you can expand to probably cause and reasonable suspicion for warrants or HHS intervention in child abuse cases...

this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
877 points (98.7% liked)

News

21752 readers
3355 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS