The Democratic party finds itself stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can’t win with Joe Biden, and if they replace him, they will be at a huge disadvantage against President Trump, who will win uncontested in the states of Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin. But this is their own fault. In order to assure Biden the nomination, they froze RFK Jr. out of the primaries. He could have won enough delegates to keep the nomination from Joe Biden without the superdelegates.
Corruption is its own reward. They got too cute for their own good. They were convinced they could hide Biden’s dementia until after the election, and maybe they could, but they could not hide his horrible policies. Especially for those on Social Security, because the COLA used to allegedly keep up with inflation does not include the rising cost of food. Then Biden removed the cost of coffee that increased dramatically on his watch.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR NEWSLETTERMike Howell, Executive Director of The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, said:
“We are monitoring the calls from across the country for President Biden to step aside, either now or before the election, and have concluded that the process for substitution and withdrawal is very complicated. We will remain vigilant that appropriate election integrity procedures are followed.”
Doug Cass wrote on X:
“What I am hearing regarding Joe Biden. Ron Klain and Barack Obama are having a sit down with the President today. Jill Biden is insistent that Joe runs. Kamala is furious that she is not being considered as a replacement (Whitmer and Newsom are). Interestingly my neighbor in East Hampton is hosting the Bidens tomorrow. It will be an important tell if the fundraiser is cancelled.”
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNELWisconsin does not allow withdrawal from the ballot for any reason besides death, while in Nevada, no changes can be made to the ballotafter 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in June of an election year unless ‘a nominee dies or is adjudicated insane or mentally incompetent.’ In Georgia, if Biden were to withdraw less than 60 days before the election, his name would remain on the ballot but no votes would be counted.
According to a draft from The Heritage Oversight Project obtained by the Daily Mail:
Three of the expected six most contested states have some potential for pre-election litigation aimed at exasperating, with legitimate concerns for election integrity, the withdrawal process for a presidential candidate.
GA, NV, and WI, have specific procedures for withdrawal of a presidential nominee with differing degrees of applicability and timelines.’ WI does not allow withdrawal for any reason besides death.”
Important caveats include the timeline and triggering events. For example, some states allow withdrawal before the 74th day before an election,’ and failure to adhere to these timelines can result in the candidate’s name remaining on the ballot! (which provides its own corollary of post-election litigation). Likewise, the rationale for withdrawal (death, medical, or other) can be outcome determinative. Some states, like South Carolina, do not allow withdrawal for political reasons.’
There is also the possibility that states will be complicit in an improper withdrawal or substitution. The general scenario plays out after an election where the candidate dies, and the electors are left to choose who they are voting for. This circumstance is only applicable at the close of the election year there is greater uncertainty if the withdrawal happens before the election.
Should the Democrats choose to withdraw in June or July, after many states’ withdrawal timelines expire, what happens to those expired ballots? Or if done earlier, in April or May, how would that effect the withdrawal process? The answer is it depends.
Much will come down to when Biden withdraws, what procedures he does or does not follow, and the operating state law timelines and triggering events. However, at least 31 states defer to state or national party rules and committees for nominating in the event of withdrawal. These states circumvent the substitution process highlighted above. There may be some avenues for challenges to these laws on improper delegation grounds, however, these may be marginally beneficial.
There is also the issue of applicability. In some of these states there are no statutes that deal with presidential candidate withdrawal or vacancy in nominations, or the laws only operate at the primary election. Even more, there is little caselaw determining when these statutes apply.
Some of the extant cases do address applying these withdrawal statutes to different fact patterns than those contemplated by the statutory text, such as withdrawal of independent presidential candidates or congressional candidates. Yet, this confusion may be its own source of litigation. Arguing for strict application of a statue, like Wisconsin’s which prohibits withdrawal except in the case of death, would likely bear some fruit.
This memorandum does not address the procedures for presidential elector elections.
Additionally, it is outside the scope of this current research to assess different rules for political parties, national and state. Standing and other jurisdictional considerations, such as cause of action (implied or otherwise), are also outside the scope of this project. Further research can casily shore up these deficiencies.
CONCLUSION
Policymakers and the public should be prepared for all externalities that arise from President Biden not running for President in 2024. The process for substitution and withdrawal presents many election integrity issues. Adherence to the law in some states may result in that process being unsuccessful for the purposes of another candidate being on the ballot.
