As legal challenges to Donald Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 presidential ballot mount, the Supreme Court could play an integral role. These litigations focus around an obscure clause of the 14th Amendment which disqualifies people who violate their oath from public office.
After conducting a one-week trial, a Colorado district judge ruled against Donald Trump for violating constitutional provisions; this decision has since been appealed by his supporters.
The Case
The legal battle surrounding Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on Colorado ballots has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which could settle it once and for all. On Tuesday, a group of Republican and unaffiliated voters filed an amicus brief asking it to review Denver district court’s ruling disqualifying Trump based on an obscure clause from Constitution’s 14th Amendment which was intended to bar former government officials who joined Confederacy from holding office; but plaintiffs claim courts have misinterpreted its language to include presidential campaigning.
The voters’ brief requests that the Supreme Court grant certiorari to examine Colorado’s ruling, which they contend relies on legal theories that should better belong in academia than during high-stakes presidential elections. Attorneys general from Indiana, West Virginia, and 25 other states have filed briefs asking justices to review this case according to Lawfare – a non-profit law and policy analysis publication which monitors these challenges.
The Voters
One of the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution is franchise. Citizens over 18 have the right to vote in local, state and national elections without fearing denial due to race, religion, sex or disability discrimination.
This case asserts that Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling violated voters’ fundamental right by compelling them to choose Donald Trump over their preferred Republican candidate for primary voting purposes. It was brought by voters and liberal government watchdog group Free Speech for People; similar suits have also been filed in Oregon and Minnesota.
The RNC requested that the Supreme Court act swiftly so as to reach its ruling before Super Tuesday (March 5), when 16 states including Colorado and Maine will hold their presidential nominating contests. Furthermore, petitioners in this case requested an expedited timeline so as to guarantee a decision will be reached before absentee ballots are finalized for voting purposes.
The State
State Supreme Courts interpret both the Constitution and laws of their states independently; judges making these determinations generally decide for themselves whether to include presidential candidate names on ballots.
Trump’s lawyers have claimed that Colorado’s ruling violated the “insurrectionist ban” in the U.S. Constitution. According to this provision, those breaking their oath cannot serve as senators, representatives, or presidential electors – however it doesn’t specify anything about presidential electors or electors.
The Supreme Court justices hold divergent political and legal perspectives on how much states may limit citizens’ choices, with interpretations likely having an enormous effect on upcoming elections across the country. Their interpretations could have an immediate bearing on state elections across America; Michigan and Oregon could both see new ballot challenge lawsuits filed soon by Free Speech for People who filed them in those states where ballot challenge lawsuits had already been heard by their secretaries of state respectively; it remains to be seen what effect any new lawsuits would have.
The Supreme Court
With state primaries and caucuses quickly approaching, it is widely expected that the Supreme Court’s ruling on 14th Amendment challenges will prove decisive in their elections. They will hear an appeal regarding Section 3, which bars people who violate an oath to support the Constitution by engaging in any sort of insurrection or rebellion from holding office; this clause was included after Civil War to stop former Confederates from returning power; yet has rarely been invoked since then.
Legal experts anticipate the Supreme Court will not restrict voter choices by barring Donald Trump from the ballot, but should clarify how certain constitutional provisions apply to presidential candidates. His attorneys claim it was never meant for courts or election officials to decide who can run for office.
The RNC and other Republican organizations contend the Supreme Court should expedite hearing the case to avoid voter confusion, and have asked justices to schedule oral arguments for Feb. 8 — which coincides with Nevada’s Republican caucuses.
To know more about recent developments, visit our Alts news website. Thankyou!