Legal Battle Erupts: Can Trump Be Barred from 2024 Ballots?
The question of whether former President Donald Trump can be barred from running for another term in the White House in 2024 is at the center of a legal battle currently unfolding. Last week, judges in Minnesota and Colorado heard arguments and evidence regarding Trump’s eligibility and his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. As this legal battle intensifies, lawyers and judges involved in the cases anticipate that the US Supreme Court will ultimately have to weigh in and provide a resolution.
These cases revolve around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which dates back to the post-Civil War era and prohibits individuals who engaged in insurrection from holding public office. The lawsuits questioning Trump’s eligibility raise a range of untested questions, including whether courts can enforce disqualification, whether the measure encompasses a president’s conduct, and whether the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol qualifies as an insurrection in which Trump engaged.
Minnesota and Colorado have emerged as significant battlegrounds in this legal fight. In Minnesota, a group of voters argued their case before the state Supreme Court, which is poised to rule on constitutional and state law questions without holding a trial. The losing party, whether it be Trump or the advocates seeking his disqualification, can then petition the US Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Colorado is currently conducting a full trial, with witnesses testifying and arguments presented on the overarching constitutional issues. The outcome of that trial will be appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court before potentially reaching the nation’s highest court.
As these cases progress, more lawsuits are being filed across the country. Some cases have already been dismissed due to procedural defects, but Trump and his campaign have had to engage legal representation months before the 2024 elections. In Michigan, a hearing is scheduled for November 9 regarding Trump’s attempts to have ballot contests dismissed. This case, initiated by the same advocacy group involved in the Minnesota litigation, Free Speech for People, will be heard before a Michigan Court of Claims judge.
The language of the insurrection disqualification clause was ratified in 1868, following the Civil War and aimed at addressing the political future of individuals who supported secession and the Confederacy. Interest in this section heightened after the events of January 6, 2021, when the US Capitol was attacked. Constitutional scholars have debated whether the language remains applicable and whether it can apply not only to elected officials who participated in the assault but also to politicians who played a role in leading up to the events, including Trump.
Early court cases yielded mixed outcomes. Couy Griffin, the founder of Cowboys for Trump, was ousted from his position as a county commissioner in New Mexico based on a successful argument invoking Section 3. However, other attempts to disqualify several Republican members of Congress who supported Trump after the 2020 election were rejected. These cases did not reach the Supreme Court and did not set a precedent eliminating the possibility of future legal battles.
The Colorado trial involves a wide array of testimony and arguments aimed at presenting a comprehensive case for disqualification. Witnesses include police officers who responded to the Capitol violence, a sociologist who has studied Trump’s influence on far-right extremists, and a 14th Amendment expert who supports a broad interpretation of insurrection, including inciting words. Trump’s attorneys, however, argue against disqualification, asserting that the events of January 6 were not an insurrection and that Trump’s political speech, including his claims of election fraud and his rally speech that morning, cannot be categorized as engagement in insurrection.
As this legal battle continues to unfold, it is becoming increasingly likely that the US Supreme Court will be called upon to provide a definitive ruling. With state election officials preparing to finalize ballots for the early 2024 primaries, the justices may soon find themselves thrust into the heart of the election campaign. The outcome of these cases will have far-reaching implications for Trump’s political future and the broader interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s insurrection disqualification clause.
