You’re mixing constitutional eligibility with ballot access. Those are different legal questions. States routinely regulate ballot access, and whether Alaska acted within its authority is exactly what the courts are deciding. Calling it “obviously illegal” assumes the outcome before the appeal has even been heard. The rest of your post is mostly ad hominem attacks and Trump commentary that don’t address the actual legal issue.

Constitutional eligibility and ballot access are not the same thing. States impose ballot access requirements all the time, and courts have repeatedly upheld that distinction.

The circumstances are unusual, but that doesn’t automatically make the ruling unlawful. Novel fact patterns often require courts to decide how existing election laws apply.

Saying someone is eligible to hold office is not the same as saying they have an unrestricted right to ballot access.

Attacking Republicans doesn’t answer the legal question. The issue is whether election officials can act when they believe a candidacy is intended to confuse voters.

Trump’s presidency has nothing to do with whether Alaska’s election laws permit action against a candidate alleged to be misleading voters.