For the first time since 1919, the 14th Amendment’s third clause was invoked. Originally drafted in 1868 to prevent former confederates from holding office, this clause disqualifies ‘insurrectionists’ from appearing on state and federal ballots. It has never been applied to presidential candidates, until now. During December of 2023, the third clause was cited by plaintiffs in Maine and Colorado as the reason why Donald Trump should be removed from the 2024 presidential election ballot.
Later that month, Former President Donald Trump was removed from the ballot in both states. The decision was ratified by the Colorado Supreme Court on December 19th, followed by Maine on December 30th, although the latter decision has since been overturned.
In both states, lawsuits from multiple plaintiffs were taken together to produce the decisions. These suits were leveled against Trump by liberal advocacy groups or private citizens. Controversial as they were and are, their rationale is clear- many people believe that Trump instigated the Capital riot of January 6th, 2021. On that day, Mr. Trump encouraged his followers to march on Washington, and ramped up his rhetoric, which maintained that the election had been stolen from him. However, it must be clarified that he never specifically called for the Capitol to be stormed.
Mr. Trump personally appealed the decisions in both Colorado and Maine. These appeals will be heard by the Supreme Court on February 8th, in a proceeding that will also set the precedent for Trump's national ballot eligibility. The decision will either overshadow or repudiate the previous ones made in Maine and Colorado.
In the meantime, Trump will remain on the primary ballot in all states as the case is being processed.
In addition to Maine and Colorado, formal challenges to Donald Trump's presidency have also been filed in at least 33 other states. Of that group, about half have been dismissed- including the Maine decision, as of January 17th. The other half remains unresolved.
Maine's decision was overturned in a circuit court. After being made unilaterally by Maine’s Secretary of State, it was quickly appealed by state republicans, who argued that the decision was itself an abuse of power. The appellate court concluded that neither they nor the secretary of state should rule on the issue before the federal Supreme Court does. Maine's Supreme Court declined to rule on the matter.
Maine’s quick back-step is typical of the issue’s controversial nature. The backlash from all corners of society has been significant. Conservatives and democrats alike have opposed the ballot bans, albeit for different reasons. Many on both sides regard the prospect of legal victory as being slim.
“Insurrection was an easy thing to prove back then, but this is different,” CSU history professor Doug Sheflin said.
At the time of the 14th Amendment's enactment, it was clear what constituted an insurrection, so there was no definition included in it. Moreover, the 14th Amendment includes no specification as to who can be found guilty of insurrection beyond an ‘officer of the United States’.
Colorado’s supreme court judges concluded, as suggested by trump's accusers, that trump's separate ‘insurrection’ trial for his role in the January 6th riot is evidence enough that he was ‘engaged in insurrection’. After all, the 14th amendment does not require a conviction of insurrection to have been brought against the accused. But, without a conviction or a precedent, Trump's accusers will have a hard time defending the decision. The ruling for the separate insurrection case is expected to happen in march- long after the ballot eligibility hearing in February.
So, Trump's accusers may be hard pressed to prove their claims.
The point of contention is whether or not they should still try. According to some MAGA supporters who view the ban as being undemocratic and politically motivated, the answer is no.
Across the aisle, others think that the bans may set a fraught precedent.
“I don’t think there’s a substitute for letting the people vote,” University of Chicago law professor Tom Ginsburg said.
On the other hand, Trump's critics argue that this is not a time for hesitancy, and that this may be their only chance to get results, no matter how imperfect the circumstances might seem.
This viewpoint is rooted in the belief that another trump term might be unacceptably dangerous, based on what happened during his last term.
“There is no doubt that Donald Trump is a threat to our liberties and even to our democracy,” California governor Gavin Newsom said.
It seems that awareness of that sentiment is widespread, including in NHS.
“Those people (Trumps’ accusers) believe that he violated his duty as a leader,” NHS Social Studies teacher Ryan Eberts said.
Eberts also echoed the belief that the cases against Trump might be shaky.
“I don't think that he’ll be held from the ballot, and if it goes to the supreme court, I think they’ll strike it down,” Eberts said.
Others in the NHS predict a different conclusion.
“I don't think he (Mr. Trump) is gonna be able to run”, NHS freshman Boden Dickinson said.
The differing perspectives of NHS community members illustrate the murky nature of this controversy. In this context, seemingly contradictory truths can be simultaneously valid. This is certainly true among different people, and even among the different perspectives in one's own head.
For example, one of the most popular viewpoints thus far is that Trump is guilty of insurrection, but he shouldn't be removed from the ballot.
For Now, we the people of the United States can do little more than form our own viewpoints on the topic, and wait for the supreme court to issue its verdict.
Comments