Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How do state felony convictions affect a presidential candidate’s eligibility to appear on the ballot in 2024 and 2025?
Executive Summary
A state felony conviction by itself does not automatically bar a person from appearing on a presidential ballot or holding the presidency under the Constitution; the Constitution’s explicit eligibility criteria are limited to age, natural-born citizenship, and residency, and federal law contains no blanket felony ban [1]. The U.S. Supreme Court’s March 4, 2024 rulings further constrained state efforts to remove candidates under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause, assigning primary enforcement power to Congress rather than to state election officials [2]. These rulings, combined with the patchwork of state felony-disqualification and voting-rights statutes, produce a complex, state-by-state reality where conviction can influence ballot access or voting rights through procedural routes and state law variations, but does not create a uniform federal prohibition [3] [4].
1. Why constitutional text matters—and what it actually says about felons running for president
The Constitution sets only three explicit qualifications for the presidency—being a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and having fourteen years’ residency—so no express constitutional provision bars felons from office; that textual limitation underpins the legal view that a state felony conviction does not, by itself, disqualify a candidate from the presidency [1]. Courts have relied on this textual baseline to resist novel state-imposed restrictions on federal-office candidacy, and the March 2024 Supreme Court opinions reiterated that constitutional qualifications are narrow and that states cannot unilaterally invent additional requirements without clear congressional authorization, a point central to the litigation over ballot removals in 2024 [2] [5]. The practical consequence is that constitutional text favors eligibility despite criminal history, placing the burden of any broader disqualification on explicit constitutional or federal-law mechanisms rather than state-level felony labels [1].
2. The Supreme Court’s 2024 rulings reshaped the map—states can’t enforce Section 3 removals on their own
The Supreme Court’s per curiam decisions in early March 2024 held that states lack authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to disqualify federal candidates, instead assigning a key enforcement role to Congress, thereby blocking state officials from removing candidates from ballots under the insurrection clause [2] [6]. These rulings specifically addressed attempts by state secretaries of state and courts to apply Section 3 against high-profile candidates, and the Court’s unanimous or per curiam posture emphasized institutional limits on state action. As a result, legal efforts to disqualify candidates on that constitutional theory were curtailed; those efforts must now contend with the Court’s reasoning or shift to Congress, leaving state prosecutors and election administrators with reduced tools to preemptively bar candidates based on past conduct alleged to involve rebellion or insurrection [5].
3. State-by-state voter and ballot rules create a fragmented practical landscape
Although a felony conviction does not uniformly disqualify a presidential candidate, state statutes on felon disenfranchisement and ballot procedures still produce uneven effects on voting eligibility and on practical ballot access, which vary by jurisdiction and by the stage of sentencing or pardon process [3]. Some states never remove voting rights for felons, others restore rights after release or sentence completion, and several require formal restoration or a gubernatorial pardon; these differences affect whether a convicted candidate can vote in a particular state and can shape public administration of ballots and filings [3]. Moreover, states have pursued both restrictive and expansive election laws since 2024, with legislation changing local procedures and official authority over ballot disputes—changes that create a moving target for candidates and litigants trying to predict how a conviction will be treated administratively [4].
4. Litigation and political dynamics matter as much as text—case examples and timing
The legal landscape since 2024 shows that court rulings and political institutions are decisive: the Supreme Court’s intervention in March 2024 preserved ballot access in high-profile cases and signaled that legal challenges invoking Section 3 will face substantial hurdles unless Congress acts [2]. Lower-court litigation and state executive actions still matter because they can create temporary injunctions, filing hurdles, or administrative uncertainty during election cycles; the March 2024 rulings curtailed some avenues but did not eliminate litigation strategies that rely on state criminal procedures, election-administration rules, or procedural deadlines. Timing is crucial because convictions, appeals, and the unfolding of sentencing can coincide with ballot-filing windows and certification deadlines, producing disparate outcomes across states despite the federal constitutional baseline [7].
5. What to watch next: Congress, restorations, and evolving state law
The most consequential developments moving forward will be Congressional action on Section 3, state legislative changes to felon disenfranchisement statutes, and ongoing election-law reform at the state level [5] [4]. If Congress enacts procedures to enforce Section 3, that would create a uniform federal mechanism with vastly different implications than a patchwork of state actions; absent that, states will continue to govern voting rights and ballot-administration details that shape practical access. Observers should monitor restoration-of-rights rules, pardon practices in states where candidates have convictions, and post-2024 legislative trends that either expand or restrict the authority of state officials over ballots—factors that will determine how conviction histories translate into real-world effects on candidacy and voting in 2024, 2025, and beyond [3] [4].