2024 Ballot Battle: Michigan Court Rejects Ban Against Trump…

Latest articles

CPAC vs. South Carolina GOP Primary: What’s...

In the absence of a better phrase, it is a political watershed day that...

Can Haley Bridge the Divide? Democrats Showing...

To mitigate what looks like an inevitable crushing loss in the home state's primary,...

Trump’s Bold Move: Dismissal of Classified Documents...

By presenting a jumble of arguments, including that the charges are legally flawed, that...

A challenge to remove Trump from the 2024 primary ballot on the grounds that he is a “insurrectionist ban” candidate was denied by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Despite the possibility of a fresh attempt to depose him in the upcoming general election, the projected result is a triumph for the former president. Trump was removed from the Colorado primary ballot due to his involvement in the January 6 Capitol riot, as per the recent verdict by the Colorado Supreme Court; Wednesday’s decision stands in contradiction to that. Pending an appeal, that ruling has been put on hold.

With these conflicting rulings, the anticipated appeals to the US Supreme Court take on much greater significance, particularly as the country rushes towards the 2024 primary. In contrast to Colorado, the lawsuit in Michigan was dismissed before it even reached trial. Due to procedural issues, an intermediate appeals court affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit.

The original judge assigned to the lawsuit from Michigan’s Court of Claims stated that election officials do not have any discretion under state law to verify the eligibility of candidates for the presidential primary. He went on to say that the courts had no business deciding the issue because it posed a political question.

Based on the statement: “At the moment, the only event about to occur is the presidential primary election,” the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed his ruling. However, his inclusion on that specific ballot is unaffected by the question of whether Trump is disqualified, as previously stated.

The Michigan Supreme Court did not announce a vote count and the order was unsigned.

The lawsuit was rejected entirely on procedural grounds by the Michigan courts, in contrast to their Colorado counterparts. They skirted the issue of whether or not Trump participated in the January 6 revolt.

On Wednesday, a justice from Michigan penned an article outlining the ways in which her home state differs from Colorado.

Just like Colorado’s election code, Michigan law does not require a presidential candidate to attest to their legal qualification to hold the office, according to Justice Elizabeth Welch’s analysis of the anti-Trump challengers.

If Trump is nominated for the Republican candidate, subsequent 14th Amendment challenges will be possible due to the decisions made by lower Michigan courts. This dynamic was highlighted by Welch in her separate opinion that was written on Wednesday.

Welch stated, “I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ ruling on this issue,” meaning that the appellants can continue to pursue legal action regarding the 2024 Michigan general election, regardless of whether Trump is nominated by the Republicans or runs as an independent.

The Minnesota Supreme Court came to a similar decision last month, dismissing a “insurrectionist ban” case concerning Trump in relation to the GOP primary; but, his opponents have the option to re-file the case once he secures the nomination.

Trump continued his baseless claims that the 2024 election could be “rigged and stolen” and criticised what he called a “pathetic gambit” to exclude him from the ballot on Truth Social.

The judgement was “disappointing,” according to Ron Fein, the legal director of Free Speech For People, which brought the Michigan case. However, Fein did clarify that the decision “isn’t binding on any court outside Michigan.” The challengers’ other lawyer, Mark Brewer, stated that they would keep fighting in Michigan.

“The decision of the Court is disheartening, but we will persevere in our efforts to defend this vital constitutional clause that safeguards our republic,” Brewer stated.

Officials who swear to uphold the Constitution are disqualified from holding public office in the future if they “engaged in insurrection,” according to the 14th Amendment, which was ratified following the Civil War. Thousands of former Confederates were disqualified under the rule. However, it is ambiguous and fails to identify the presidency, and it has only been invoked twice since 1919.

In September, a number of voters were represented by Free Speech For People in the Michigan lawsuit. A fresh case was filed in Oregon not long ago, and it had previously challenged Trump’s eligibility for the presidency in Minnesota under the 14th Amendment, but had failed. A different liberal-leaning group filed the complaint in Colorado.

Moreover, on Wednesday, Trump’s legal team requested that the secretary of state of Maine abstain from determining whether or not the “insurrectionist ban” should exclude him from running for office in 2024. The secretary of state, rather than the courts, hears petitions challenging the validity of ballots in Maine.

Earlier this month, an administrative hearing concerning Trump’s eligibility for office was presided over by Democratic Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows. You have the option to appeal her decision in the Maine state courts; her ruling is anticipated this week.

She probably won’t consent to step down. The trial judge in Trump’s Colorado case denied his request, which was very identical to his previous one.


More like this

CPAC vs. South Carolina GOP Primary: What’s Happening Today?

In the absence of a better phrase, it is a political watershed day that might provide the Republican Party the confirmation it needed over...

Can Haley Bridge the Divide? Democrats Showing Interest…

To mitigate what looks like an inevitable crushing loss in the home state's primary, Nikki Haley and her supporters are relying on Democrats. A small...

Trump’s Bold Move: Dismissal of Classified Documents Case…

By presenting a jumble of arguments, including that the charges are legally flawed, that prosecutors have targeted him for political reasons, and that the...