DEFINE INSURRECTIONIST — This week marks an important moment in a debate that could have an enormous impact on the 2024 presidential race: the kickoff of court arguments as to whether Donald Trump is eligible to run for president. At issue is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which states that no one holding office “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” Trump’s actions on January 6, some conservative and liberal legal scholars argue, fall under that definition, and thus disqualify him from appearing on ballots. A proceeding that began in Colorado on Monday has already heard testimony from legal experts and two police officers at the Capitol on Jan. 6, while a similar case in Minnesota starts Thursday. The legal theory — which is catnip for Trump haters — went mainstream in August, after two prominent conservative lawyers argued that not only is Trump barred from serving, but that secretaries of state who oversee elections should also have the power to remove him from the ballot. That slice of the theory has landed with a thud. No secretary of state in the nation — liberal or conservative — has signed on to the idea that they have the power to bar Trump from competing in elections. Most states have no law on the books that allows secretaries of state to judge presidential candidates; state officials are so far unwilling to endorse the idea that the 14th amendment is “self-executing,” or that they have the power to unilaterally pluck a name off of a contest. In a September op-ed, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, who’s a Democrat, argued that it’s not the responsibility of secretaries of state to decide this question . Ditto for Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, the Republican who pushed back — at great political cost — against Trump’s requests in 2020 to “find more votes.” Raffensperger made a similar argument in the Wall Street Journal . So, now anti-Trump forces are looking for a court ruling that Trump is ineligible, sidestepping the “self-executing” issue. The cases in Colorado and Minnesota touch on some of the same themes as the Trump criminal cases related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. “Trump incited a violent mob to attack our capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power under our Constitution,” said lawyer Eric Olson, arguing for a group of Colorado voters and an advocacy organization bringing the complaint. Trump’s attorney Scott Gessler argued that Trump “didn’t carry a pitchfork to the Capitol grounds and lead a charge to get into a fistfight with legislators… He gave a speech in which he asked people to peacefully and patriotically go to the Capitol to protest.” The attempts to ban Trump from running in the first place also give the former president’s lawyers another lane for a defense: that groups trying to get him off the ballot are attempting to subvert the will of the voters themselves. Along those lines, Trump’s legal team has recently gone on the offensive on the issue, suing Michigan’s Benson for creating “uncertainty” by not responding to the Trump campaign’s inquiries about his ballot eligibility. In Colorado, Judge Sarah B. Wallace is expected to issue a written ruling at some point after arguments wrap up, which will likely be at the end of this week. But both sides assume the fight won’t end there ; it could be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. Even in a worst case scenario for him, Trump could weather decisions ruling he is ineligible for the Colorado or Minnesota ballots — he’s lost both states twice already and has a path to Electoral College victory without them. It’s other states — like Michigan, a key presidential battleground — which could pose a more significant problem, especially when piled atop the multitude of other legal woes already on his plate. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@politico.com . Or contact tonight’s author at cmchugh@politico.com or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @calder_mchugh .
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.