‘It Is So Clear That the Law and the Facts Require’ Trump’s Removal as a Candidate
Earlier Gorsuch ruling could play role
Although variations in the law may result in different results at the state level, the US Supreme Court should rule to keep Donald Trump off the ballot in next year's presidential election, according to a variety of legal analysts.
The former president — and current frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination — has been excluded from the ballot in Colorado and Maine Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars anyone from running for public office who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Trump was found to no longer run for his prior job because his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Officials in other states, including Michigan, have allowed Trump to remain on the ballot, however. And the US Supreme Court is poised to decide whether Trump remains eligible to return to the White House or not.
“Well, I think we just have a strong constitutional case. Not only on the meeting of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment but on the facts. There are only three courts or other entities that have actually looked at the facts in this case and reached the merits and they have decided that President Trump engaged in an insurrection against the Constitution on January 6,” said Sean Grimsley, an attorney for the plaintiffs seeking to disqualify Trump in Colorado. “The first was a trial court here in Colorado. Then was the [Colorado state] Supreme Court. Now we just recently had the decision from the secretary of state in Maine.
“And as far as the actual interpretation of the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment goes, I think we have the much better of the historical argument,” he added.
In its decision to keep Trump off the state ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court cited a past ruling by Neil Gorsuch. At the time was a federal judge in Colorado, but today sits as a justice on the US Supreme Court.
“Here is what then Judge Gorsuch said: Now, of course, Justice Gorsuch, he said a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits the state to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office,” said Glenn Kirschner, a former longtime federal prosecutor and now a prominent legal analyst. “I have to say that feels like a little bit of foreshadowing on at least how judge Gorsuch, now Justice Gorsuch, will approach this issue.”
The credibility of the US Supreme Court is at stake, according to Jennifer Rubin, an American attorney and opinion columnist for The Washington Post.
“Because it is so clear that the law and the facts require his removal, that the Supreme Court should consider doing anything else I think will be the final nail in the coffin of a court that is already in a death spiral when it comes to legitimacy and credibility with the American people,” she said.
That Michigan chose differently than Colorado and Maine is a function of state law, according to Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney in Michigan.
“Every state has a slightly different procedural posture when it comes to administering elections. And so although the Constitution controls the substance and the qualifications, it is the states that decide how they go about it,” she said. “So in Michigan, there is no requirement that the secretary of state determine that a person is qualified to serve as president before they may appear on the ballot. That’s different in Colorado and it's different in Maine.”
Please support our work…
Please subscribe…