As a counterpoint, Arizona Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals, decided that, in the absence of a criminal conviction, removal from the ballot was unnecessary.
It can also be argued that as primaries are the party choosing who it wants to put forward as a candidate, and parties are private corporations, there is no constitutional relevancy at this stage.
The problem is who decides on the (dis)qualification. In this case one federal judge disagreed with the conclusions of judges in two other states and the majority of the House of Representatives.
As a counterpoint, Arizona Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals, decided that, in the absence of a criminal conviction, removal from the ballot was unnecessary.
It can also be argued that as primaries are the party choosing who it wants to put forward as a candidate, and parties are private corporations, there is no constitutional relevancy at this stage.
deleted by creator
The problem is who decides on the (dis)qualification. In this case one federal judge disagreed with the conclusions of judges in two other states and the majority of the House of Representatives.