RESIDUAL STATE POWER TO REGULATE PRESIDENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS IN THE WAKE OF TRUMP V. ANDERSON AND MOORE V. HARPER.

In Trump v. Anderson, the Supreme Court refused to permit states to implement Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and disqualify candidates for federal office under that provision. Yet under Article II of the Constitution, states as entities enjoy wide latitude to pick electors who in turn select Presidents. This latitude has been confirmed by the Court in Chiafalo v. Washington and (implicitly) in Moore v. Harper, and is in no way constrained by U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (insofar as the latter deals specifically with congressional elections, a matter over which states do not enjoy the same discretion they enjoy concerning presidential selection). Because, this Article argues, the Anderson ruling, however dubious, does nothing to cut back on state power to exclude, as a matter of state law, persons who have engaged in rebellion from being considered for a state's support in a presidential contest, states can accomplish via state law what the Court said Colorado could not do under Section 3. This reality in turn makes the Anderson ruling, and its rationale (emphasizing the need for uniformity among states), even more unconvincing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]