A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit filed by an individual challenging Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on their state primary ballot.
This case revolves around a clause in the Constitution disqualifying government officials who engage in “insurrection or rebellion.” Similar arguments have been raised against similar clauses in Colorado and Minnesota; both cases were ultimately denied by judges.
The lawsuit was filed by a Texas man
South Carolina political parties rather than one elected official or an election agency determine who appears on its primary ballots. Castro, who runs a tax preparation business and is hoping to mount an unlikely GOP presidential bid, claimed that Trump’s inclusion violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits former officials who “engage in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office again.
Castro’s case against President Trump relied on an obscure clause of the post-Civil War amendments of the Constitution; however, he failed to convince a judge of any direct harm from his claim.
Election officials in South Carolina are set to distribute ballots for its inaugural South-wide Republican primary, scheduled for Feb 24. Trump will face off against former and current GOP governors Haley, Rick Scott and others; as well as several high-profile independent candidates like U.S. Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota and Marianne Williamson, who all appear on the ballot alongside Trump.
Trump’s presence on the ballot violated the 14th Amendment was without merit
Donald Trump holds the lead in South Carolina’s first-in-the-nation primary and is expected to win its delegate count easily, though there is some competition from other GOP candidates who are trying to unseat him.
Castro argued that President Donald Trump violated the 14th Amendment’s prohibition of insurrection, yet she failed to start her petition drive and file her lawsuit until Jan 26 – well past its deadline for doing so. According to Judge Cohn-Carroll’s analysis, she failed to demonstrate this with facts — she failed to submit petitions as required and only filed her lawsuit afterward on Jan 26.
Nikki Haley is the only Republican candidate who has visited Emanuel AME Church since 2015 when white supremacist Dylann Roof opened fire and killed nine. Haley claims President Donald Trump has made divisive comments about race while failing to address gun violence effectively, yet many Republicans in Alabama question her own race identity and ability as an administrator.
The judge dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing
Judge Thomas Coffin decided that those filing the lawsuit do not have legal standing to challenge Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on the ballot in New Hampshire. Additionally, New Hampshire law does not mandate him to remove him because he satisfies age, citizenship and residency criteria of New Hampshire state statute. His ruling followed similar decisions by judges in Arizona and West Virginia who also dismissed similar lawsuits brought by John Anthony Castro.
Voters seeking to disqualify Donald Trump from running contend that he violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which states those engaged in insurrection are ineligible for public office. The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in a case to challenge whether this clause applies to his presidential bid – this case could have national ramifications and voters in Illinois and Massachusetts are filing suit to keep Trump off their ballots until then.
The judge ruled that Trump’s presence on the ballot does not violate the 14th Amendment
As Nikki Haley and Joe Biden battle for momentum in South Carolina, liberal groups and legal experts are mounting challenges to Trump’s eligibility on the ballot. According to their argument, an anti-Civil War clause disqualifying anyone who took an oath to support and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against its provisions from holding office prevents Trump from running again.
However, judges in Arizona and Michigan have rejected similar challenges, prompting voters who filed suit in Colorado to ask their state supreme court to review this decision. These judges stated that Section 3 is too broad, permitting secretaries of state to disqualify candidates based on personal beliefs or political affiliation.
Voters and the liberal group Free Speech for People argue they have an excellent case and their lawsuit raises important issues that should be reviewed by the supreme court. But according to an experienced legal scholar who has studied this matter, any court ruling against Trump from remaining on the ballot in this instance would likely provoke backlash among his supporters and undermine trust in elections.
- Friday Intraday Trading Sees Nvidia’s stock Market Cap Momentarily Cross $2 Trillion
- Trump’s January 6 Civil Cases Proceed While Criminal Case Is Halted
- Trump Delivers Speech at the Columbia Black Conservative Federation Gala
- Trump Declares Strong Support for IVF Following Alabama Supreme Court Decision
- Schumer in Ukraine Declares US Backing During House Aid Standoff