Former Judge Ariel Barahona who heard arguments in Donald’s case believes there is sufficient evidence of insurrection by former President to warrant disqualifying his name from Illinois ballot, although higher courts should make the final call on whether to block Trump from running for election again in 2024. Barahona issued his nonbinding recommendation after hearing arguments Friday at State Board of Elections from attorneys representing Trump and objectors involved in hearing.
This case revolves around a clause in the 14th Amendment that disqualifies people who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding federal elected office, an argument used against Trump by Colorado and Maine officials who barred him from their ballots.
Shortly after the Jan. 6 attack on Capitol, Free Speech for People launched an attempt at stopping Donald Trump. They reached out to top election officials across all 50 states and asked them to use constitutional provisions against him from appearing on their ballots; Colorado and Maine officials have already done this.
Massachusetts lawmakers are engaging in legal battle over Trump’s eligibility to run for office there, while Illinois voters filed paperwork Thursday seeking to block his candidacy based on constitutional clause.
Attorneys representing Trump and citizens challenging him argued Friday that he shouldn’t be allowed to run for office due to his involvement in the attack on Capitol. They asserted this was an act of insurrection prohibited under Section 3 of the Constitution.
Judge Clark Erickson agreed with Ericas’ assessment, finding there to be “preponderant of evidence” demonstrating Trump engaged in insurrection; however, he recommended that an appellate court adjudicate his fate as it lacks the capacity and expertise needed to address such an important and complex constitutional matter.
Erickson’s recommendation will now go before the State Board of Elections for their vote, scheduled to occur Tuesday. A spokesperson from this board stated their expectation that it will support Judge Erickson’s thoughtful analysis as to why Trump cannot run for election in Ohio.
Ideally, if the election board sides with Erickson’s request and rules in his favor, this legal challenge against Trump would come to an end. Otherwise, state court litigation and ultimately U.S. Supreme Court could ensue as arguments regarding Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling to keep Trump off of ballot in Colorado take place later in February.
Trump filed his own filing to defend and refute allegations that he engaged in insurrection, contending that attacks against Congress were peaceful demonstrations against the illegitimacy of 2020 elections, while inciting supporters to demonstrate in a peaceful way wasn’t inciting insurrection since there wasn’t violence or mass mobbing at that time. Furthermore, as with most crimes, private citizens don’t have standing to bring charges of insurrection; only government agencies such as an attorney general’s office can bring these charges against individuals.
To know more about recent developments, visit our Alts news website. Thankyou!
- 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
