The Oregon Supreme Court has declined to consider a case aimed at barring Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 election ballots, according to a HuffPost article on January 12, 2024.
A group of five Oregon voters initiated the legal challenge, invoking Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the nation from holding state or federal office after taking an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
The voters initially approached Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade to remove Trump from both primary and general-election ballots. However, the Secretary of State argued that state law did not empower her to take such actions.
More Read
In response, the voters escalated their appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court, seeking resolution to their concerns. The court’s decision not to proceed with the case is linked to a pending U.S. Supreme Court hearing on a similar matter, highlighting the complexity and significance of the legal questions involved.
The legal argument centers on the interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, particularly in the aftermath of the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol insurrection. Colorado’s Supreme Court previously ruled, in a 4-3 decision, that Trump’s involvement in the events of that day met the 14th Amendment criteria, disqualifying him from appearing on the state’s ballots.
This decision in Colorado has set a precedent, influencing subsequent rulings, including one by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who similarly concluded that Trump is ineligible for ballots.
With the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to review the Colorado decision, oral arguments are scheduled for February 8, promising a comprehensive examination of constitutional principles and potential implications for Trump’s political future.
The Oregon Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case adds complexity to the ongoing legal saga surrounding Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 elections. As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to weigh in, the legal landscape remains dynamic and subject to further developments that could shape the political scenario in the years to come.
