MN ballot access still an issue for Trump; Update: case dismissed

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Just what Erc said he'd do if he still lived here!

FWIW the Minnesota Supreme Court recently flipped to a 4-3 DFL appointed majority, and the Pawlenty appointed Chief Justice is the sort of person who has "#NeverTrump" written all over her. This could be interesting.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Just what Erc said he'd do if he still lived here!

FWIW the Minnesota Supreme Court recently flipped to a 4-3 DFL appointed majority, and the Pawlenty appointed Chief Justice is the sort of person who has "#NeverTrump" written all over her. This could be interesting.

There's definitely a part of me that's glad this is going forward...though I'm really, really surprised it's the DFL that's going through with it.

I figured it would be the Libertarians or Evan McMullin, who would only gain from such a move.

I think the goal is obviously to depress Republican turnout and reap the benefits downballot.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

To be fair, this is all speculation. This isn't something that happens very often at all, so it's all sort of meaningless conjecture to talk about whether people are going to vote for a more cohesive team or an individual candidate.

I don't know for sure what will happen, and of course even a small effect could matter, but I do think it's more complicated than just glancing at statistics for normal circumstances since this wouldn't be normal at all.

For sure. I was only trying to say that current statistics give me more reason to believe that Democrats will receive a decent boost in support. It could not end up breaking that way, but I have more reason to believe it than not.

Doesn't seem fair to try and boot a candidate off the ballot for partisan gain, but at the same time, the fact that Trump's operation (and MNGOP?) are so disorganized that something like this can happen leaves little room for sympathy in my eyes.

--

ALSO, how long would it take the MN Supreme Court to rule on this? If I understand correctly, early voting in that state in some form or another begins as early as the end of the September, and they need time to print ballots, so wouldn't this decision have to come literally within the next 7~ days or so?

The Minnesota Supreme Court is pretty quick on hearing election related stuff and always has been. Wouldn't surprise me if we get a hearing and decision on Monday.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In 2012 Secretary of State Mark Ritchie tried to change the titles of both the Voter ID and gay marriage ban amendments to more negative sounding titles. A bunch of Republican legislators filed suit and the State Supreme Court blocked it. The Limmer v. Ritchie case was filed July 26, 2012 and decided August 27. So about a month. Here they'd have to expedite that obviously. It was a 4-2 decision (Justice Wilhelmina Wright had only been sworn in after the case had been heard). Neither of the dissenting justices is still on the court (of course Dayton appointed their successors). And for that matter none of the Dayton appointees were on the Court at that time either (ironically Wright is no longer on the court, she resigned her seat to take a federal court appointment earlier this year). At the time the Minnesota Supreme Court had a 5-1-1 makeup, of 5 Republican appointees (but one of those who dissented: Paul Anderson was appointed by sort of RINO Hillary endorsing this year Governor Arne Carlson and was a liberal ala John Paul Stevens), one who was elected to an open seat but was a liberal (Alan Page) and one appointed by Dayton (Wright, who as noted did not rule on the case). So there's no real precedent for how a DFL appointed majority like this would rule.

Hmmmm...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Just what Erc said he'd do if he still lived here!

FWIW the Minnesota Supreme Court recently flipped to a 4-3 DFL appointed majority, and the Pawlenty appointed Chief Justice is the sort of person who has "#NeverTrump" written all over her. This could be interesting.

There's definitely a part of me that's glad this is going forward...though I'm really, really surprised it's the DFL that's going through with it.

I figured it would be the Libertarians or Evan McMullin, who would only gain from such a move.

I think the goal is obviously to depress Republican turnout and reap the benefits downballot.

Quite right.  The DFL really has nothing to lose here; only Democrats in other states (and even then it's arguable).

The only way this could backfire on the DFL is if the third parties got major status as a result as noted, though as I said I don't think they fear the Libertarians or a return of the IP. Do hope this doesn't encourage people knowing Trump won't win to vote Stein though.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Damn, but the DFLosers have been terrible since they exploited Wellstone's death for political gain.

Yeah if you mean holding every statewide office and having never lost a statewide election in ten years to be terrible...