UNBIASED - August 13, 2024: RFK Jr. Loses Ballot Access in New York, Trump Files $100M Claim with DOJ, Union Files Labor Charges Against Musk/Trump Following Livestream, and More.

Episode Date: August 13, 2024

Welcome back to 'UNBIASED.' In today's episode: RFK Jr. Loses Ballot Access in New York (0:15) United Auto Workers File Labor Charges Against Musk and Trump Following Livestream on X (10:21) Quick Hitters: Harris and Trump Agree on 'No Tax on Tips', Chipotle CEO Lands New Gig at Starbucks, Arizona Will See Abortion Access on November Ballot, Trump Campaign Office Burglarized, Trump Files $100M Claim With DOJ, and U.S. to Resume Weapons Sales to Saudi Arabia (12:07) Support ‘UNBIASED’ on Patreon. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features, BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long.

Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Tuesday, August 14th, and this is your daily news rundown. Let's just get right into today's stories. How about that? Last week, I reported on a case that independent presidential candidate RFK Jr. was facing in New York over ballot access, which was brought by four different New

York voters backed by a Democratic PAC. Last night, the judge ruled against him, which means, as it currently stands, Kennedy will not be on the presidential ballot in New York come November. Now, if you want the full backstory on the lawsuit, go ahead and check out last Wednesday's episode. So that's August 7th. But this episode will focus on the judge's ruling as well as what Supreme Court precedent tells us about this particular issue. I'll do a very brief recap of the facts right now, but nothing like I did last week. Just want to give you a little bit of context here. The issue at the heart of this case was whether Kennedy could appear on New York's ballot because of the home address he listed on his nominating petition. In each state, an independent candidate is required to file what's

called a nominating petition. And each state sets forth certain requirements when it comes to what must be included with a candidate's petition. So in New York, an independent candidate has to get a certain number of signatures, correctly fill out the forms, etc., etc. residence means the place where that candidate maintains, quote, a fixed permanent and principal home and to which he, wherever temporarily located, always intends to return, end quote. Kennedy, on his petition, listed a New York address, which belongs to a friend to whom he's been paying rent. He lives in California. He says that he spends time at this New York address but doesn't own it himself, but that him and his wife have always planned to return to New York when her acting career is over in LA. He also testified that his driver's license

is registered in New York, he pays taxes in New York, his voter registration is in New York, his law license is in New York, he receives mail at this New York address, etc. Furthermore, Kennedy says that he had no choice but to put this New York address because he had to put the same address on each state's petition. And some states say that your residence has to be the place where you vote, which for him is in New York. But again, because this is a New York state case, this particular case came down to that New York election law that defines where Kennedy's residence has to be. And that Kennedy's listed residence has to be the place where he maintains

a fixed permanent and principal home to which he always intends to return. And the judge said that this address he put on the petition was not that. In her ruling, first she said that the standard in this case is strict compliance, because strict compliance ensures that election law is neutrally applied, regardless of a candidate's history, background, party affiliation, or protected class. Then she writes, quote, In view of the strict compliance standard, the court's inquiry in this proceeding is not whether Kennedy substantially complied with the election law, nor does the court's inquiry in this proceeding is not whether Kennedy substantially complied with the election law, nor does the court's inquiry involve consideration of whether

Kennedy's use of that address was intended to or did in fact mislead or confuse signatories to that petition. Rather, the strict compliance standard simply requires the court to determine whether the address was in fact Kennedy's legitimate, quote, place of residence under the election law at the time the nominating petition was circulated and filed with the Board of Elections, end quote. Continuing a little ways down on the ruling or in the ruling, she writes, quote, here petitioners demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, which is the standard of proof, that the address listed on the nominating petition was not Kennedy's bona f the address existed only on paper and was maintained for the sole purpose of maintaining his voter registration and political standing in the state of New York. End quote.

As a result of this ruling, Kennedy's nominating petition is invalidated, the signatures are invalidated, and the deadline to file has already passed, so he can't refile. Essentially, if this ruling stands, he won't be on New York's ballot come November. Now, if you want to read that full ruling for yourself, you're more than welcome to. It's not that long, and I do, of course, have it linked for you in the sources section of this episode, which you can always find in the podcast description. Now, here's the thing. The Supreme Court has issued somewhat conflicting rulings on whether states can disqualify or bar presidential candidates. Most recently, as we know, in April, the justices unanimously held that Colorado could not disqualify Trump from its state ballot. That dealt specifically with Section 3 of the Constitution. The justices wrote, quote,

We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office, but states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency. End quote. As I said, it's a little bit different of a situation because Section 3 of the Constitution, also known as the Disqualification Clause, is not at issue in Kennedy's case like it was in Trump's. Kennedy isn't being disqualified per a constitutional provision as much as the state of New York is saying that his nominating petition didn't meet the requirements under state election law and is therefore void. If the deadline hadn't passed, he could certainly refile with what New York deems to be the correct address.

But because the deadline has passed, he has no other option. He won't appear on the ballot. So definitely a different story here than in Trump's case, but something to keep in mind because it did seem as if the justices in Trump versus Anderson were trying to avoid a problem in which presidential candidates appeared on some state ballots, but not all. The justices in the Trump versus Anderson decision also wrote, quote, because federal officers owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion of the people, powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically delegated to rather than reserved by the states, end quote. Now on the flip side of that argument, there's an older case. It's a 1974 case called Storer v. Brown. And what happened in that case is almost exactly what's happening here. So two independent candidates for president and vice president were

disqualified under state election law because they failed to meet the state petition requirements in California. They brought suit and ultimately the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court and basically told the lower court, hey, here's how you need to assess this issue. What that tells us is that states are allowed to make their own election rules and ballot qualifications as it pertains to independent candidates, and that there may be permissible situations in which an independent candidate does not appear on a state's ballot, but appears on other state ballots. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would have ruled very differently back in 1974 and simply said that

California's election ballot access requirements were unconstitutional. Now, that's not to say that individual ballot requirements can't be challenged. They certainly can. And Kennedy can certainly challenge this residency requirement. It's just to say that even in light of Trump v. Anderson, states may still be allowed to make these rules that result in disqualification in some cases. And the justices actually spoke to this idea a bit more in a 1997 case called Timmons. There, the court said that if ballot access requirements impose only, quote, reasonable non-discriminatory restrictions, end quote, on ballot access, those requirements trigger a, quote, less exacting review. In those cases, a state just has to show an important regulatory interest

to justify their ballot access requirement, not too much of a burden. However, if the restrictions are considered to be severe, the state has a heavier burden. So if we apply that precedent to Kennedy's case, it would seem that the address requirement falls into the former category, and it wouldn't really be too difficult for the state to meet their burden as per this 1997 precedent. But who knows? This is just simply an analysis based on prior precedent. We obviously don't know for sure what's going to happen here. One thing we do know for sure, Kennedy said he will be appealing this decision, so we'll see where it goes. And one final note I want to make is that Kennedy also tried to

argue the fact that the 12th amendment of the Constitution dictates presidential and vice presidential residency requirements, and therefore state law cannot, right? This is as per the Supremacy Clause. State law can't conflict with federal or the Constitution. But the judge didn't consider this argument, and I don't really know where that argument would go, considering the 12th Amendment really only speaks to the fact that the Electoral College can't vote for two candidates from the same state as the electors themselves, not specifically residency. But from here, it'll go to the appeals court in New York. On appeal, I'm sure Kennedy will ask for a complete reversal. But another thing he can do in the meantime is ask for a stay, which would basically pause the lower court's ruling until the appellate court renders its own decision. That would essentially allow Kennedy to remain on the ballot at least temporarily.

As far as what effect this decision has on other states, it's not a binding decision, which means that other states are not obligated or required to follow New York's decision. However, other courts or other state courts can certainly take it into consideration in issuing their own rulings. I'd imagine all of this happens relatively quickly, so it should be sorted out by the time the election comes around. In some other news, last night, Donald Trump and Elon Musk had a conversation on X about many, many topics, which included immigration, Harris's new no tax on tips policy, which we'll talk about

towards the end of this episode, Biden leaving office, foreign policy, inflation, clean energy, education, and much, much more. But one of the topics surrounded workers going on strike. And now the United Auto Workers Union has filed federal charges against both Trump and Musk with the National Labor Relations Board. So at one point in the conversation, Trump says to Musk, quote, you're the greatest cutter. I mean, look at what you do. You walk in and you just say you want to quit. They go on strike. I won't mention the name of the company, but they go on strike and you say, that's okay, you're all gone, end quote. This is what triggered the complaint from the UAW president who claims

that both Musk and Trump made statements suggesting that they would fire employees engaged in protected concerted activity, including striking. Now, under the federal law, the National Labor Relations Act does protect the right to strike. But the law also says that the lawfulness of a strike depends on various factors, such as the purpose of the strike, the timing of the strike, and the conduct of the strikers. So there's not really this blanket protection for all strikes and all threats against strikes. And considering the fact that Trump and Musk's comments were very generic, who knows where this will go? But nonetheless, the UAW president says these comments were illegal.

We don't know much more than that at this point, since we don't have access to the complaint at this time. Rather, all of this information is coming directly from the UAW's president's ex-account. Now we can finish with some quick hitters. The first quick hitter is that Harris and Trump so far agree on one thing. Workers' tips shouldn't be taxed. Trump first pitched this idea a few months ago at a rally in Nevada in June, and just this past weekend when Harris was in Nevada, she also came out in favor of this plan. So under current law, employees are required to disclose all tips over $20 a month to their employer. The federal government then collects a share via income and payroll taxes.

So the question then becomes, are these candidates wanting to exclude tips from income taxes, payroll taxes, or both. Neither Harris nor Trump have made their positions clear on that. Starbucks's CEO is stepping down after just one year in the role and being replaced by Chipotle's CEO, Brian Nicol. So Nicol will be Starbucks' fourth CEO in just two years and will officially start his new role on September 9th. In the meantime, Starbucks' CFO will serve as interim CEO. Arizona's Secretary of State office confirmed today that

abortion access will officially be on the ballot this November. The office said there were roughly 578,000 signatures for abortion access, which surpassed the minimum number of signatures needed, which was roughly 384,000. If this ballot measure is passed, the measure would establish a fundamental right to abortion in the state constitution, which would allow for abortion access up until viability. Currently, Arizona bans abortions after 15 weeks, except in the case of a medical emergency. Trump's campaign office in Ashburn, Virginia, which also serves as the headquarters of the Virginia 10th District Republican Committee, was burglarized on Sunday night. A news release by the local sheriff's office says it was contacted at about 9 p.m. on Sunday about the break-in, but by the time they arrived, the man was already gone.

Police have yet to determine what was taken. Trump's lawyers have filed a $100 million claim with the Justice Department, alleging that the federal search of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 was inappropriate and hurt Trump's reputation. The lawsuit was filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows people wronged by government employees to seek compensation from federal agencies. Note that this is different than a lawsuit in that this is a claim for relief filed directly with the DOJ for alleged wrongdoing by its own employees. And the last story I have for you today is that the United States will resume sales of offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia. The announcement

from the State Department ends a suspension put in place at the beginning of Biden's administration over concerns about human rights violations in the war in Yemen. The department said today that the Saudis have since met their end of the deal, which includes implementation of improvements in civilian harm mitigation procedures, and therefore that means it's time for the United States to hold up its end of the bargain and resume sales. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. Have a great night, and I will talk to you tomorrow.