In a recent development, Maine’s top election official, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, has taken the unprecedented step of barring Donald Trump from the state’s primary election ballot. This decision, grounded in claims that Trump’s post-2020 election actions rendered him ineligible for re-election, marks the second instance where a state has blocked the former president’s bid for the presidency. In a contrasting move, California’s election official announced that Trump would remain on the ballot in the state, highlighting the divergent approaches states are taking in dealing with this contentious issue.
Bellows’ decision in Maine hinged on Donald Trump’s role in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Citing the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Bellows agreed with citizens who argued that Trump had incited an insurrection, making him ineligible to seek the presidency again. She acknowledged the unprecedented nature of her decision, stating, “I am mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection.”
This follows a similar ruling by Colorado’s Supreme Court, which decided that Trump should not appear on the state’s Republican primary ballot. The conflicting decisions underscore the ongoing tensions in the United States over issues of democracy, ballot access, and the rule of law. It also intensifies calls for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and provide guidance on the obscure clause of the 14th Amendment that is central to the effort to block Trump from running for the presidency again.
As the 2024 election looms with just weeks before the first votes are cast, legal battles are unfolding across the country, seeking the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Reconstruction Era constitutional amendment. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies individuals who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. However, the lack of clarity in how this criterion should be applied has left election officials and judges navigating largely uncharted waters.
Courts in Minnesota and Michigan have ruled that election officials cannot prevent the Republican Party from including Trump on their primary ballots. Michigan’s Supreme Court recently affirmed that political parties should have the authority to determine the eligibility of presidential candidates. Oregon is also awaiting a court decision on a challenge seeking to remove Trump from the ballot, similar to the case in Michigan.
Legal Battle for Donald Trump
California, being the nation’s most populous state, carries significant weight in this debate. Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat, faced a Thursday deadline to certify the list of official candidates. Despite indications that she was inclined to keep Donald Trump on the ballot, legal challenges and a late request from the lieutenant governor to explore removal options added complexity to the decision.
The legal battleground centers on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, designed to prevent Confederate officials from serving in the U.S. government. The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter is anticipated to be the most politically significant since the resolution of the disputed 2000 election. With the Court’s current conservative makeup, largely influenced by Trump’s appointees, the outcome will have far-reaching implications.
Trump and his legal team characterize the efforts to block him from ballots as politically motivated tactics by Democrats. Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Donald Trump campaign, labeled Maine’s secretary of state as “a virulent leftist and hyperpartisan Biden-supporting Democrat,” denouncing the disqualification efforts as a “hostile assault on American democracy.”
Groups spearheading the disqualification efforts argue that Trump’s attempts to undermine the 2020 election justify extraordinary measures to protect American democracy. In Maine, Secretary Bellows, a Democrat and the state’s first female secretary of state, based her decision on Trump’s false declaration of eligibility and his role in spreading a false narrative of election fraud, culminating in the events of January 6, 2021.
The 34-page decision stated that Donald Trump “used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them” to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. It further alleged that Trump was aware of the potential for violence and initially supported its use by encouraging it with incendiary rhetoric and taking no timely action to stop it.
Legal experts suggest that the Supreme Court’s decision will determine the swift resolution or prolonged duration of these challenges. A broad ruling that Donald Trump’s conduct does not violate the 14th Amendment would quickly dispel challenges in multiple states. A more limited ruling on the Colorado case could allow Trump to remain on that state’s primary ballot, giving room for continued legal debates on his eligibility for the general election.
The petitioners in Maine included Ethan Strimling, a former mayor of Portland, and two other former Maine lawmakers, emphasizing the importance of upholding the rule of law and constitutional principles. Trump has the option to appeal Bellows’s decision to Maine’s Superior Court within five days, and the outcome will significantly impact the scheduled Republican primaries in Maine and Colorado on March 5, known as Super Tuesday.
The challenges to Donald Trump’s ballot access have proliferated in over 30 states, primarily through legal channels. However, Maine’s unique constitutional requirement adds an additional layer, mandating registered voters to file a petition with the secretary of state. The Colorado ruling, although specific to that state, has emboldened similar decisions in other states.
California, with its lack of explicit authority for the secretary of state to disqualify presidential candidates, presents a distinct case. Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis urged Secretary Weber to explore legal options to remove Donald Trump from the ballot, aligning with the constitutional justification cited by the Colorado Supreme Court. Governor Gavin Newsom expressed reservations about removing Donald Trump from the ballot, emphasizing the importance of defeating disliked candidates at the polls rather than through administrative measures.
The complexity of the legal questions involved underscores the necessity for the U.S. Supreme Court to provide clarity. A decision in favor of Donald Trump would not be binding for Congress, but it would exert significant political influence, making it challenging for Congress to adopt a different stance. As the legal saga unfolds, the nation awaits the Supreme Court’s intervention to navigate the intricate intersection of constitutional provisions, electoral processes, and the aftermath of the tumultuous 2020 election.