There are many things I don’t know. For example, when a Special Counsel is ready to issue a report, who reviews it before it is released? Anyone?

I ask this because, as I remember it, when Robert Mueller’s report on Donald Trump was issued, there had been reviews in the Justice Department and then Attorney General Barr was involved in writing a misleading press release, etc. In the case of Robert Hur, I don’t know if there was any review at all. I have not seen anything that makes it look like anyone above him was involved. Both Mueller and Hur were “Special Counsel”, so I assume that their authority was equal.

I also know that there was something issued by the Justice Department near the end of last month, saying that Attorney General Garland was having back surgery the weekend of January 3, and that he would be back at work sometime this week. Whether he had the surgery, whether he was back at work, whether the Hur report was issued while Garland was on medical leave, I don’t know. (You get my drift.)

But I am curious. Because the remarks of Republican Hur, who is reputed to be a very intelligent fellow, regarding his impression of Joe Biden’s mental competence seems so out in left field, that I can’t imagine it would pass any general Departmental review, irrespective of whether the Departmental review thought it accurate or inaccurate. I also don’t know if the 5 hour interview (or was it interviews) with the President have been recorded, or transcribed. It would be nice to see what exactly was asked and answered during that session (those sessions?)

What we do know is that, during the Mueller report, Donald Trump did not give similar impressions of senility, not because he might not be senile (after all, he is just 3 years younger than Biden), but because he refused to sit and answer any questions. So the Mueller report was issued without the benefit of any responses from Trump which, to me, along with certain other things in that report made it much less useful than it could have been. And, I think Mueller’s final report was as problematic as Hur’s, just in different ways. As to Biden? No good deed goes unpunished.

But – and I will say it again – even assuming that Biden’s memory is as good as it has ever been – I don’t think an 81 year old should be running for president. And I would like to see him bow out and the Democrats agreeing on someone else to run against Trump, or whomever.

And it looks like Trump will run, because of what happened yesterday at the Supreme Court. As I have said before, if the Court decided that Colorado could leave Trump off the ballot, chaos would result (I am thinking legal chaos, not physical chaos, although there would be a good chance for that as well.). And I don’t want to repeat what I said within the last week or so, since I know most of you remember everything I say.

But I have been thinking about other things related to presidential election ballots. And, although as usual I have to admit my lack of precise knowledge on the subject – or any other subject -, it seems to me that our election laws are rather vague and incomplete and it’s probably only by luck that we have been as successful as we have been for as long as we have been.

One big example, of course, is that in voting for the President, we are voting for electors to cast their ballots when the Electoral College meets. And we know that states choose their electors in varying ways: most give the popular winner all the state’s electoral college votes; two divide the electors in the same proportion as the popular vote is split among the candidates running; and several have agreed to an interstate compact (not now operating) where they would cast their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. We also know that there was confusion during the 2020 elections as to whether states could select electors in other ways, and what the Congress would do with those electors when the count is held.

But states can keep would-be candidates off the ballots in other ways. For example, if I called the Colorado Secretary of State and told her that I have decided to run for president, and would she please put my name on the ballots, she would laugh in my face. States seem to have their own ways of deciding who can go on a ballot. I don’t know what all of them do, but one common way is to require a certain number of citizens of the state to sign a petition. Or to file their intention to run by a certain date. This doesn’t seem to be a requirement of nominated candidates of the Republican or Democratic parties, although I am not sure why. But whenever there is an independent candidate running, there is always a question as to how many states that candidate will be on the ballot in. And as to the No-Labels movement, if they nominate a candidate, it is unclear to me how that candidate will be required to proceed to get on the ballots.

Now, some things are, I guess, clear. A state cannot set unconstitutional requirements for candidates to get on a ballot. For example, a state can’t say only men can run, or only Whites. They also probably cannot be arbitrary or capricious in deciding who can, and who cannot, be on a ballot.

But can they make other distinctions? Can a state say that no one ever convicted of a misdemeanor or felony can run? Can say they no one who has never served in the military can run? Or no one who holds dual citizenship? You get the idea.

And of course, paragraph 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t talk at all about running for office. It doesn’t say that someone who has been involved in insurrection or rebellion can’t run. It just says that they cannot hold office. Does that mean that they can run, but not be inaugurated (without a 2/3 Congressional vote)? And if it does mean that, could a state pass a law (or even adopt a regulation, pursuant to a general law) that states that no one involved in a rebellion or insurrection can run because they can’t be inaugurated?

All of this goes back to our concept of federalism – or rather our lack of a general concept. Does it make sense that state laws at all apply to federal elections? Does it make sense that states run federal elections?

Does anything make sense?