Missouri's Republican Secretary of State, Jay Ashcroft, recently caught the attention of the media as he discussed the possibility of removing President Biden from the ballot. During a live interview, Ashcroft stated that according to Missouri's state constitution, going to court would be necessary to seek such a move. However, upon closer examination, it was found that the state constitution actually bars the Secretary of State from assessing a candidate's qualifications and deciding to remove their name from the ballot.
The interview started with the host questioning Ashcroft about his plans to remove President Biden from the ballot. Quoting section 115-387 of Missouri's state constitution, the host reiterated that the Secretary of State's authority does not extend to the assessment of candidate qualifications.
Amidst their discussion, the host brought up a Colorado case wherein a court ruled to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot. However, Ashcroft, who admitted not reading through all the evidence of the case, clarified his stance by highlighting that the Colorado case arose from a law that prohibits the Secretary of State from overstepping their authority. Ashcroft connected this back to Missouri, emphasizing that a similar law restricts his own actions in removing candidates from the ballot.
Throughout the exchange, the host insisted on Ashcroft providing his strongest argument to support his plan in court. Yet, Ashcroft seemed to divert his attention towards the potential implications of such a move. He expressed concerns about the broader consequences if the Supreme Court were to uphold the ruling in the Colorado case, thereby allowing removals from the ballot based on individual claims. Ashcroft warned of a potentially slippery slope, urging the Supreme Court to intervene and prevent such actions from happening in any state.
While the interview raised questions about Ashcroft's intentions and potential legal arguments, it ultimately underscored the importance of clarifying the limitations on the Secretary of State's authority in Missouri. As the discussion progressed, it became increasingly clear that Ashcroft's ability to remove a candidate from the ballot is circumscribed by the state constitution, underscoring the need for a comprehensive understanding of the law.
As the debate continues, it remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will address the issue and provide guidance on the boundaries of the Secretary of State's powers in Missouri and beyond. The outcome of this case has significant implications for electoral processes and the role of state officials across the nation.
