Law school professors William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas wrote:

We the People should honor and vigorously enforce this important provision of our Constitution. It should not be allowed to become a dead letter from disuse... That means that those who possess the power and duty to apply and enforce Section Three have a constitutional responsibility to do so, fairly but vigorously. If state election boards or secretaries of state determine that a candidate for state elective office or a candidate seeking to represent that state in Congress is constitutionally disqualified from holding that office, those state authorities should exercise the state-law powers they possess to remove ineligible candidates from the ballot. If the House or Senate determines that a person elected to serve as a member of such body is constitutionally disqualified from holding such a position, they should refuse to seat or expel that person. And if a candidate for President, or an already-elected President, is constitutionally disqualified from office by Section Three, then that disqualification should be enforced by state election officials, by electors, by Congress through the impeachment process, and by the Vice-President, cabinet and, Congress in carrying out the Twenty-fifth Amendment.1 [Emphasis ours.]

And with respect to the example of a Presidential candidate, and after some discussion, they wrote:

...if state officials excluded him from ballot eligibility, he would likely be able to sue in state or federal court to challenge state officials’ determination of ineligibility. And if he was not excluded by state officials, voters (at least in some states) might possess the legal right to challenge his eligibility. Either way, such a challenge would present a classic legal case or controversy. It is not difficult to imagine such suit being resolved by courts. Indeed, given the magnitude of the question and its consequences, it is not difficult to imagine such an important case making its way quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court. It would then become the province and duty of the Court to determine and apply the meaning of Section Three.1 [Emphasis ours.]

But what can you and I, who are not officeholders with the power to execute the actions mentioned above, do?

We can spread the word.

Everyone should be aware that we, as regular citizens, possess the power to influence this situation simply because we can vote. If ballot-controlling officials believe voters are indifferent, how many will risk their professional standing to take action? We can exert influence simply by letting them know that we do care and will support them.

Money will need to be raised to defend against lawsuits.

We can be sure that any decision by a public official to exclude Mr. Trump from a state ballot will result in lawsuits. Both the official and their decision will require legal defense, and one of these cases might make its way to the Supreme Court.

One objective of this site is to monitor fundraising efforts related to this cause. As these initiatives emerge, we will provide information on where people can contribute. This site is not, itself, a fundraising site at this point.