Possibility of Trump not making it onto the Republican ballot in certain states?

[Erc]

Warning: this is completely crazy, but I want for a moment to discuss the possibility.  This clearly isn't going to happen, but potentially could have in the event of a contested convention that culminated in a walkout.

What guarantee is there that the state GOPs accept the ruling of the national convention?  Obviously, this may vary from state to state due to state law or state GOP rules, but I can't find any national GOP rule that enforces that the selection of the RNC must appear on the ballot in each individual state.

Obviously, it's extremely customary, but there have been exceptions in the past.  LBJ didn't appear on the ballot in Alabama in 1964; Truman was not listed as the Democratic candidate in Mississippi in 1948, for example.  Going back further, Taft did not appear on the ballot at all in South Dakota and California in 1912.

The will obviously is not there, but is this technically a possibility in extremely anti-Trump states (Minnesota being the prime example here)?  Could the MN GOP chair just decide to report to the Minnesota Secretary of State that the MN GOP's presidential nominee is someone other than Donald Trump?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Thank you, Erc, for lifting the veil of my depression, at least for one night.

[Xing]

What if they did this in Utah? LOL

[ag]

They could. They, probably, will not. It is also possible to have multiple Republican candidates on the ballot in some states (State X Republican and National Republican), as was the case in several Southern states back in 1948. Also, not very likely.

[Erc]

What if they did this in Utah? LOL

I suppose Utah would be the place they might actually consider doing this; I don't know how it would work, mechanically, especially since they've already held their state convention.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

It'd destroy the party. Even if Prebieus was totally #NeverTrump, he'd never sign on to it.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

What if they did this in Utah? LOL

I suppose Utah would be the place they might actually consider doing this; I don't know how it would work, mechanically, especially since they've already held their state convention.

The best third party strategy would be to have Romney run as a third party only in Utah.  Then, with Utah going for Romney the reasonably likely Romney+FL+OH+PA map becomes Trump 267, Clinton 265, Romney 6.  The House can then pick Mitt, as he is one of the top three finishers.

[jimrtex]

Warning: this is completely crazy, but I want for a moment to discuss the possibility.  This clearly isn't going to happen, but potentially could have in the event of a contested convention that culminated in a walkout.

What guarantee is there that the state GOPs accept the ruling of the national convention?  Obviously, this may vary from state to state due to state law or state GOP rules, but I can't find any national GOP rule that enforces that the selection of the RNC must appear on the ballot in each individual state.

Obviously, it's extremely customary, but there have been exceptions in the past.  LBJ didn't appear on the ballot in Alabama in 1964; Truman was not listed as the Democratic candidate in Mississippi in 1948, for example.  Going back further, Taft did not appear on the ballot at all in South Dakota and California in 1912.

The will obviously is not there, but is this technically a possibility in extremely anti-Trump states (Minnesota being the prime example here)?  Could the MN GOP chair just decide to report to the Minnesota Secretary of State that the MN GOP's presidential nominee is someone other than Donald Trump?

In 1912, California ballots did not have presidential candidate names on the ballot. Instead it had the individual elector candidate names on the ballot. Roosevelt's running mate was Governor Hiram Johnson. There was a September primary to nominate congressional and legislative candidates, who also served as delegates to a state convention to choose the elector candidates. Progressives won most of the nominations, and at the convention chose electors who said that they would vote for Roosevelt and Johnson.

California did not allow independent candidates for president, and it was too late for Taft supporters to form a new party. Taft elector candidates had to run write-in and voters had to write-in the name of each candidate (only 13 at the time).

While it was relatively easy to vote for all electors of a party, not everyone did, and there may have been confusion in the counting. Apparently some precinct clerks when tallying votes just put a tick mark next to the first candidate for the party, instead of a tick for each of 13 candidates. When they were canvassed at a county level, it was interpreted as a vote for the first county only. I suspect that this interpretation might have varied from place to place. In any event two Wilson electors finished in the top 13, and so the electoral vote was split between Roosevelt and Wilson.

IIRC, the elector candidates in South  Dakota had been chosen earlier by the Republican Party at a progressive-dominated convention, and they announced that if elected, they would vote for Roosevelt and Johnson.

In Texas

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Texas does not recognize the Republican National Committee. It recognizes the Republican Party of Texas. It would appear possible for the RPT chair to certify other names. It might be that the RNC and Trump could sue the RPT. For example it might be that the consent of the RNC for Texas delegates to participate in the national convention is contingent on the RPT certifying the RNC nominee. The deadline for certification is early September, so the party could wait.

Texas law does not bind its elector candidates. So it would be quite possible for an elector to vote for someone other than the nominee.

[Erc]

In Minnesota, the state similarly recognizes the MN GOP only and has the state party chair submit the names of the candidates.

Any such state chairs that did so of their own accord would almost certainly be ejected from the Republican National Committee under Rule 4 ("The Republican National Committee shall have the power to declare vacant the seat of any member who refuses to support the Republican nominee for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States.").  What that would mean in practice is unclear, as state and national GOP rules would likely conflict.

Whether it would apply to any state chair that personally supported Trump but did so at the behest of his state party is another question.

[Badger]

What if they did this in Utah? LOL

I suppose Utah would be the place they might actually consider doing this; I don't know how it would work, mechanically, especially since they've already held their state convention.

The best third party strategy would be to have Romney run as a third party only in Utah.  Then, with Utah going for Romney the reasonably likely Romney+FL+OH+PA map becomes Trump 267, Clinton 265, Romney 6.  The House can then pick Mitt, as he is one of the top three finishers.

OMG, didn't you promise to leave already?

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=236091.msg5055257#msg5055257

I've already posted a thread on this.