Explainer
Why did Maine and Colorado disqualify Trump from
their ballots?
Decisions stem from the US constitution’s insurrection
clause and could have major ramifications for 2024 election
Cameron
Joseph and agencies
Fri 29 Dec
2023 01.02 GMT
Officials
in Colorado and Maine have ruled that Donald Trump is ineligible to run for the
White House again, citing his role in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.
In
Colorado, the state supreme court ruled 4-3 earlier this month to take the
former president off the state’s Republican presidential primary ballot; on
Thursday, Maine’s secretary of state kicked him off the ballot there too.
The
decisions will probably have major legal and political ramifications for the
2024 election, and stem from a rarely used provision of the US constitution
known as the insurrection clause.
Trump’s
campaign promised to immediately appeal the decisions to the US supreme court,
which could well strike them down. Similar lawsuits are working their way
through the courts in other states.
Here’s what
we know so far, and what it might mean for the former president and current
Republican frontrunner.
What is the insurrection clause and why was it used?
The
decision by the Colorado supreme court is the first time a candidate has been
deemed ineligible for the White House under the US constitutional provision.
Section 3
of the 14th amendment, also referred to as the insurrection clause, bars anyone
from Congress, the military, and federal and state offices who once took an
oath to uphold the constitution but then “engaged” in “insurrection or
rebellion” against it.
Ratified in
1868, the 14th amendment helped ensure civil rights for formerly enslaved
people, but also was intended to prevent former Confederate officials from
regaining power as members of Congress and taking over the government they had
just rebelled against.
Some legal
scholars say the post-civil war clause applies to Trump because of his role in
trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and obstruct the transfer of
power to Joe Biden by encouraging his supporters to storm the US Capitol.
“The
dangers of Trump ever being allowed back into public office are exactly those
foreseen by the framers of section 3,” Ron Fein, the legal director for Free
Speech for People, said in a recent interview. “Which is that they knew that if
an oath-taking insurrectionist were allowed back into power, they would do the
same if not worse.”
How did this happen?
In
Colorado, the case was brought by a group of voters, aided by the group
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), who argued Trump
should be disqualified from the ballot for his role in the 6 January 2021 riot
at the US Capitol.
Noah
Bookbinder, the group’s president, celebrated the decision as “not only
historic and justified, but … necessary to protect the future of democracy in
our country”.
Colorado’s
highest court overturned an earlier ruling from a district court judge, who
found that Trump’s actions on January 6 did amount to inciting an insurrection,
but that he could not be barred from the ballot, because it was unclear that
the clause was intended to cover the role of the presidency.
A majority
of the state supreme court’s seven justices, all of whom were appointed by
Democratic governors, disagreed.
In Maine,
the secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, examined the case after a group of
citizens challenged Trump’s eligibility and concluded that he should be
disqualified for inciting an insurrection on 6 January 2021.
Has this happened before?
The
provision has rarely been used, and never in such a high-profile case. In 1919,
Congress refused to seat a socialist, contending he gave aid and comfort to the
country’s enemies during the first world war.
Last year,
in the clause’s first use since then, a New Mexico judge barred a rural county
commissioner who had entered the Capitol on January 6 from office.
What does this mean for the election?
The
Colorado ruling applies only to the state’s Republican primary, which will take
place on 5 March, meaning Trump might not appear on the ballot for that vote.
The same is true in Maine – if the decision takes effect, it would only apply
to the state’s ballot.
The
Colorado supreme court temporarily stayed its ruling until 4 January, however,
which would allow the US supreme court until then to decide whether to take the
case. That’s the day before the qualifying deadline for candidates.
Colorado is
no longer a swing state – Biden won it by a double-digit margin in 2020, and
the last time a Republican won it was 2004 – but the ruling could influence
other cases across the US, where dozens of similar cases are percolating. Other
state courts have ruled against the plaintiffs; in Michigan, a judge ruled that
Congress, not the courts, should make the call.
Advocates
hoped the case would boost a wider disqualification effort and potentially put
the issue before the US supreme court. It’s unclear whether the court might
rule on narrow procedural and technical grounds, or answer the underlying
constitutional question of whether Trump can be banished from the ballot under
the 14th amendment.
The case
could have significant political fallout as well. Trump allies will paint it as
an anti-democratic effort to thwart the will of the American people, lumping it
in with the numerous legal cases he faces in state and federal court.
“Democrats
are so afraid that President Trump will win on Nov 5th 2024 that they are
illegally attempting to take him off the ballot,” the Republican congresswoman
Elise Stefanik, a close Trump ally, posted on social media.
Trump
didn’t mention the decision during an evening rally on 19 December in Iowa but
his campaign sent out a fundraising email calling it a “tyrannical ruling”,
with the statement going on to say:
“Democrat
Party leaders are in a state of paranoia over the growing, dominant lead
President Trump has amassed in the polls. They have lost faith in the failed
Biden presidency and are now doing everything they can to stop the American
voters from throwing them out of office next November.”
Trump’s
attorneys, meanwhile, have argued that the 14th amendment’s language does not
apply to the presidency. A lawyer for Trump has also argued that the January 6
riot at the Capitol was not serious enough to qualify for insurrection, and
that any remarks that Trump made to his supporters that day in Washington were
protected under free speech.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário