At Balkinization, Marty Lederman has launched a series of posts called "A User’s Guide to Trump v. Anderson," which already appears to be a prodigious (and prodigiously helpful) undertaking. Here are the opening posts:
A User’s Guide to Trump v. Anderson: Introduction
I don't agree with all his points (and don't have an opinion on many of them) but he introduces a number of perspectives that have not been fully explored elsewhere. In particular, I agree with his insistence that the Anderson case is not directly about disqualification, but rather about the state's power over ballot access (especially primary ballot access). That creates an enormous number of procedural complexities, as the posts explore.
Viewing the matter as one about power over ballot access, I would like to see the series address more fully the question of the state's power to limit the state Republican party in selecting delegates to the party's own convention. To be sure, the state undoubtedly has some power to assure that the primary election is fair and orderly (which may include power to exclude candidates that are obviously disqualified). But it's less clear to me that the state's power in this regard is unlimited.
UPDATE: Derek Muller has thoughts in Part I.D of this amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson, and in this post at Election Law Blog: Trump v. Anderson: the election law case that wasn’t (but might be). From the introduction:
I have long treated Trump v. Anderson (and related cases) as an election law case first, and as a separate substantive constitutional law (or Section 3) case second. I’ve long had this view on these qualifications cases, stretching back a decade, when I was looking at the natural born citizen cases with Barack Obama, John McCain, and Ted Cruz. There is no question that these disputes are about ballot access. And Trump v. Anderson has the potential to be the most significant ballot access case in over 30 years.
That said, it’s been astonishing, to me, at least, that we have seen very little effort for this case to be litigated primarily as an election law case. (For instance, we’ve seen essentially no conversation about the Anderson-Burdick test here.) But it seems increasingly likely, to me, that if the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor (and by if, the likelihood seems to be declining), it will be on an election law ground related to ballot access rather than a substantive Section 3 analysis.
Posted at 6:07 AM