During last December, the states of Maine and Colorado ruled to keep former president Trump off of the states’ upcoming primary ballots. With pending decisions in 19 other states, Mr. Trump is heading towards even more legal battles to keep his name on primary ballots nationwide.
The heart of these efforts to keep Trump off of primary ballots is the 14th amendment of the constitution which has a clause that prevents individuals who engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office. Though this clause was originally written to prevent former confederates from serving in the US. government, it is now being used to keep Trump off of primary ballots due to his role in the January 6th Capitol riot. Trump’s team has stated that they plan to appeal any decision to keep his name off of a state’s ballot; the appeal of Colorado’s decision is going to the supreme court where arguments will be heard February 8th. In Maine, republicans attempted to impeach the state’s secretary of state (Maine’s top election official) because of her decision to exclude Trump from the ballot, though this attempt was shut down by the Democrat controlled state legislature. Although this attempt was blocked, it shows the lengths republicans are willing to go in order to protect Trump.
Even Democrats have shown support to keep Trump on primary ballots. Democratic governor Josh Shapiro and Democratic Senator John Fetterman, both from Pennsylvania, have voiced their opposition to taking Trump off the ballot. Shapiro’s opinion is rooted in the belief that elections should be decided “at the ballot box, not in the courts.” Fetterman’s position is justified by his belief that at this point, it’s not helpful to remove Trump from the ballot. Since Pennsylvania is expected to be a closely contested swing state, these statements from Shapiro and Fetterman could be their attempts to not rile up Trump supporters. If they came out in support of taking Trump off the ballot, he could use that as a talking point at rallies in Pennsylvania in an attempt to drive up Republican voter turnout in the upcoming general election as he did in 2016.
As the challenges in 19 states approach a decision, it will be intriguing to watch how Trump and his supporters react to the decisions along with how the decisions affect his performance in the 2024 primaries and general election.
Sources:
Trump Ballot Challenges: What to Know - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Tracking efforts to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot (axios.com)
Maine House votes down GOP effort to impeach top election official | AP News
Shapiro, Fetterman say Trump should remain on Pennsylvania's ballot (abc27.com)
5 comments:
I didn't realize how complex the situation was. When I heard that some Democrats were actually supporting keeping Trump on the primary ballots, I was confused, because I thought they would want to reduce the chance of Trump being elected as the Republican nominee. However, given Trump's previous success at rallying his supporters around the idea that he is being treated unfairly by the political system (ie. the Jan 6 insurrection after claiming the election was stolen), I think it makes sense that they wouldn't want to give Trump more of an opportunity to do so by forcefully removing him from the ballot. Instead, it makes sense to take a more subtle, clearly legitimate route, rallying people to vote against him in the primary and general elections themselves.
I think the connection to the clause preventing those who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from running, in relation to the Confederacy, is interesting. From the minimal amount that I've read about the history of the American South and the Southern identity, I think that the Confederacy is still alive in politically extremist pockets of the South through Confederate memorabilia, (interesting) interpretations of the Civil War and its causes/outcomes, etc. Folks who share those "Confederate" sentiments are arguably a part of Trump's fanbase, and their presence on Jan 6 is also evident. So I think there's a really interesting connection between extremists who politically prioritize their Southern heritage/identity over national security and the Confederates of the 1860s. Of course, it'd be extreme to label Trump a Confederate, but I'm just pointing out the connection forged by his voter base.
I agree with Lipika, that rallying people to vote against him--it's less forceful and less harsh. With that being said, trump cannot claim the election was stolen from him again if the people demonstrate their stance against him. Also connecting to Grace's comment, I think her observation is really interesting--how extremists politically prioritize their Southern identity over national security. I wonder how this type of mindset can influence his voter turnout.
While I agree with Lipi that in an ideal world rallying the voters against Trump so that he loses the nomination in the typical fashion would be the best solution, I don't really see that as likely to occur. As Ben pointed out in his post, his voters are willing to go as far as impeaching their own state officials just to get the candidate of their choice. It would take just short of a miracle to change such a loyal voter base. Besides, it doesn't really seem as if any of the other candidates really pose much of a threat to Trump's Republican nomination (that is if he is able to stay on enough of the state ballots). The way I see it, if only a couple states take Trump off their ballots, there won't be much of an impact, he'll still win. But, if enough states are able to do so it is only then Trump just might lose. There is a slippery slope there though, if a couple of states are able to pass these new anti-Trump ballots, more states might just follow...
On another note, I do disagree with the implication that this is not a "clearly legitimate" way. Personally I believe the 14th Amendment is a solid enough of a legal foundation to rule against Trump. Whether or not it happens its likely that either Trump or his voters will claim that the election was rigged. This would only follow his previous pattern of falsified claims as seen during the "rigged voting machines" sensation of the 2020 presidential election.
I would like to expand on Chin-yi's belief regarding the legitimacy of the actions people are taking to ensure that Trump does not get elected as president. Although Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has not been all that historically important, we do have a single precedent from 2022, where New Mexico County Commissioner Couy Griffin was removed from office for participating in the January 6th attack, basing the removal off of the same Section 3 of the 14th Amendment used to remove Trump from the ballot in Maine. Additionally, amendments and laws have had shifts in their interpretation in the past(i.e. 1st Amendment in Citizens United v. FEC, 2nd Amendment in various laws banning assault rifles and other dangerous firearms, etc), so I don't think that the process of taking advantage of the legal system like many interest groups are doing should be labels illegitimate. Instead, I believe something like Trump's actions to the votes in Georgia in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election is closer to an illegitimate method of winning an election.
New Mexico Legal Precedent:
Judge removes Griffin from office for engaging in the January 6 insurrectiont
Post a Comment