In a recent development surrounding the 14th Amendment, there has been a flurry of discussions regarding its interpretation and application in the context of removing former President Donald Trump from the ballot. The relevant section of the amendment, Section 3, states that individuals who have engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or provided aid or comfort to enemies are prohibited from holding office. However, the question of who has the authority to determine such cases and the adequacy of state procedures for due process arise from the text.
While Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment through appropriate legislation, the role of state-level decision-making procedures remains unclear. This ambiguity has prompted a series of lawsuits and political efforts aimed at removing Donald Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. Secretaries of state in various states have emerged as key figures in these proceedings.
Notably, several secretaries of state, both Democrats and Republicans, have expressed their belief that they lack the constitutional authority to remove Donald Trump from the ballot. For example, Jocelyn Benson in Michigan and Brad Raffensperger in Georgia have declined to take action, asserting that they do not possess the legal power to do so.
Legal challenges seeking the disqualification of Donald Trump have faced significant obstacles in the courts. In the six states where such cases have been filed, they have been uniformly rejected. The Michigan Supreme Court's recent ruling exemplifies this trend, as they determined that Trump should not be removed from the ballot. While a court in Colorado stands as the exception, having disqualified Trump, further legal action is expected, with the issue likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court for final resolution.
Separately, a recent motion filed by Jack Smith, the special counsel in an election subversion case, sought to limit the scope of Trump's defense. The motion aims to prevent the inclusion of irrelevant arguments about political motivations, being singled out, or the level of security at the Capitol. Smith argues that these factors are not pertinent to the defense and should not be raised during the proceedings. The judge presiding over the case will need to establish boundaries on the defense's arguments, allowing for an aggressive defense while ensuring a focused and relevant trial.
As the legal battles surrounding the 14th Amendment and attempts to remove Donald Trump from the ballot continue, the U.S. Supreme Court is anticipated to intervene to provide clarity on these matters amidst the ongoing chaos.
