In a pivotal development, the Michigan Supreme Court, on Wednesday, cleared the path for Donald J. Trump to appear on the state’s primary ballot, marking a significant victory for the former president in a crucial battleground state. The decision upheld a previous ruling by the appeals court, asserting that Trump’s name could be included on the ballot, despite lingering questions about his eligibility to hold elected office, stemming from his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
This decision in Michigan follows a controversial ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court on December 19, where a 4-3 majority opinion decided that Trump should be excluded from the state’s 2024 Republican primary ballot due to his alleged role in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob. Trump’s response to the Michigan ruling was swift, with the former president expressing his approval on his social media platform, Truth Social, and emphasizing the need to prevent any perceived rigging or theft of the 2024 election.
Ron Fein, the legal director of Free Speech For People, a group advocating for Trump’s disqualification from the 2024 election, noted that the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision was narrow and avoided addressing the core questions at the heart of the case. According to Fein, this leaves the door open for future challenges regarding whether Trump can appear on the general election ballot in Michigan. Despite this partial victory for Trump, the legal battle surrounding his eligibility continues, with implications for the upcoming primary scheduled for February 27.
Fein remarked, “The Michigan Supreme Court did not rule out that the question of Donald Trump’s disqualification for engaging in insurrection against the U.S. Constitution may be resolved at a later stage.” This statement reflects the complexity and ongoing nature of the legal challenges confronting Trump’s potential candidacy, with the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately be called upon to render a definitive judgment.
The issue of Trump’s eligibility is not confined to Michigan; it has broader implications as similar challenges have been raised in more than 30 states. Critics argue that Trump’s actions, particularly in relation to the January 6 Capitol attack, fall under the purview of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This section stipulates that individuals who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution, having previously sworn an oath to support it, are disqualified from holding federal office.
A lower-court judge had previously ruled in Trump’s favor, asserting that the disqualification of a candidate under the 14th Amendment is a political matter and not one for the courts to decide. The decision was made by Judge James Robert Redford of the Court of Claims in Michigan in November. The Michigan Supreme Court’s recent ruling has implications beyond the state, contributing to the broader legal discourse surrounding Trump’s eligibility for public office.
Moreover, the legal battle raises questions about the role of state officials in determining ballot eligibility. Judge Redford had ruled that Michigan’s top elections official alone does not have the authority to exclude Trump from the ballot. This underscores the delicate balance between judicial oversight and the political nature of decisions related to candidate eligibility.
Free Speech for People, the liberal-leaning group that initiated the lawsuit, appealed the initial ruling, urging the state Supreme Court to expedite the case, citing time-sensitive considerations related to the printing of primary ballots. Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s secretary of state and a Democrat, echoed this urgency, emphasizing the need for a ruling by December 29 to ensure an orderly election process, particularly given the approaching deadlines for sending primary ballots to military and overseas voters (January 13) and printing absentee voter ballots (January 18).
1 thought on “Michigan Supreme court says Trump can stay on ballots”