To begin with the obvious, an indictment is a document used to formally bring criminal charges against an individual (here the Orange Menace).  Under the law, all criminal defendants are presumed to be innocent of the charged offense, and the prosecution has the burden to present sufficient evidence to convince twelve jurors to unanimously agree that the evidence proves that defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no precise timetable for when a case must go to trial.  The U.S. Supreme Court has held that, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a trial begun within eight months of charges being filed is sufficiently speedy to satisfy the speedy trial clause of the U.S. Constitution.  If, as often happens, it takes more than eight months to bring a case to trial, the courts then use a balancing test to decide how long is too long.  In theory, Trump might be able to delay the trial until after the 2024 election.  If he succeeds in this goal, the problems for him will be mostly how much of a distraction the pending case(s) will be (both in terms of time and money) and how voters react to the charges.  While it’s too early to tell for sure, the initial reaction of voters seems to be that the true believers will see any accusation against their god as persecution and an attempt to block them from electing him.  This groups might be just enough to get him the Republican nomination, but this group is not large enough to get him elected.  On the other hand, a significant group of swing voters seem to be tired of the chaos and criminality associated with Trump, and these charges (unless something else comes out to undermine them) seem likely to make it harder for Trump to win the general election.

The “interesting” questions come when Trump is convicted.  (Most defendants are convicted.  While there is an old saying that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich, that saying is only half true.  Yes, the prosecution controls what a grand jury hears, but they still need some credible evidence that the defendant committed a crime.  And, after you get the indictment, you still need to win a trial.  While some prosecutors might put the hand slightly on the scale to get an indictment in a case that is a close call, it does little good to bring charges when your evidence is so weak that you have no chance at getting a conviction.)  And this is a question of ballot laws in the fifty states (plus D.C.) and the rules of the Republican Party.

The U.S. Constitution sets the rules for the qualifications of federal officials, but state laws define how a candidate gets on the ballot.  Previously, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that term limits for members of Congress was a “qualification” rule rather than a ballot access rule, and, as such, term limits violated the U.S Constitution.  Several states have rules barring convicted felons from the ballot.  Now, the Fourteenth Amendment allows states to disqualify felons from voting.  The Supreme Court, however, has never addressed whether felon disqualification rules for ballot access are a “qualification” for office or a permissible rule on ballot access.    If Trump is convicted prior to November 2024, we could see a rather fast-moving case resolving this legal question.

If the felon disqualification rules are merely a ballot access issue, then the timing will be crucial.  The Republican Party’s rules for delegate selection (specifically Rule 16(a)) binds the delegates on the first ballot in accordance with the results of the vote in their state.  While state parties can make provisions in their delegate selection plans for unbinding delegates, I have strong doubts that any state party is going to make provisions for the possibility that a contender was either blocked from the ballot due to a felony conviction or is convicted after the primary in that state.  While the Republican Convention, in theory, can toss the existing rules out the window if the majority of delegates see fit, I also having trouble seeing that taking place even if Trump is convicted after the primaries conclude.  Thus, we are dealing with two basic possibilities — a conviction early enough to block Trump from the ballot in several states or one that occurs between the end of the primaries and the convention.  If you have an early conviction, you could have the situation in which Trump is not on the ballot in several states (and thus gets no delegates from those states) which will make it harder for Trump to win a majority of delegates which would make it easier for the convention to pick somebody else.  If Trump gets the majority of delegates, I am doubtful that there will be enough establishment delegates elected as Trump delegates to get a rules change; so the Republican Party might be stuck with Trump as the official nominee.  But, if folks are anticipating that Trump might have to withdraw, you could have an open fight over the vice-presidential nomination.

One you get past the convention, you then have to consider the general election and ballot access along with faithless elector laws.  While, in practice, the differences in state laws have not really mattered in past election, they could become crucial in 2024.  To oversimplify things, state laws on the presidential candidates fall into two broad categories — the national nominee or the choice of the state committee.  In the modern era, no state party committee of a major party has named somebody other than the national nominee (although that is not entirely true for minor parties).  But what if the national nominee is kept off the ballot in some states.  If it is up to the national party to designate a replacement candidate, I can’t see the RNC doing that.   But, given the choice, would a state party committee opt to designate a place holder on the ballot (a senior elected official from the party).  If the national committee/state commitee refuses to name a replacement, what happens with the line item on the ballot?  Does the line become something like “Unpledged Republican Electors”?  Or does the line become “Nikki Haley for Vice President” with no Presidential candidate named?  Or does the Republican Party lose its line?

If the Republican Party has somebody other than Trump named as its presidential candidate in a particular state, what do MAGA voters do?  Do they skip the presidential race?  Do they realize that a vote for the Republican candidate is a vote for Trump?  Do they write-in Trump?  While there are certain states in which the confusion of MAGA voters will not make a difference, there are some red-leaning, not-quite-swing states in which this problem could cost Republicans the state.

And, if the Republicans manage to hold onto a state with Governor John Doe filling the presidential slot on the ballot, then faithless elector laws might come into effect.  While in many states, the faithless elector laws merely fine electors for an “illegal” vote, other states have laws with more bite.  In those states, it is legally impossible to cast the “wrong” vote.  An elector who tried to vote for Donald Trump would be automatically disqualified and replaced with a substitute elector who would vote for Governor Doe.  And, if the Republicans had narrowly won nationally, that might throw the election to the House and would certainly bring up issues under the Electoral Count Act.

Of course, the best thing for the Republicans would be for Donald Trump to announce over the summer that between his age and the need to concentrate on defending himself against the multiple charges that he was not going to be able to run for President in 2024 but would be back in 2028 (not really, but his ego will make him say it).  If not, the Swamp Thing will continue to stir up unprecedented chaos for the 2024 election.