A recent report from Fox News on December 29, 2023, the decision by California Secretary of State Shirley Weber to keep former President Trump on the 2024 GOP presidential primary ballot is causing a stir nationwide.
Despite calls to remove him, Weber certified the candidate list, allowing California voters the choice to pick Trump in the upcoming primary. This move has sparked controversy due to a court ruling that declared Trump ineligible for the presidency under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause.
The court argued that Trump’s actions played a role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, leading to questions about his eligibility. Maine’s secretary of state also disqualified Trump based on a similar ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, reflecting a national debate on whether Trump’s role in the Capitol attack should disqualify him from running.
More Read
Efforts to remove Trump from primary ballots in Minnesota and Michigan failed, showcasing the varying legal interpretations across states. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to make a final decision on Trump’s eligibility, shaping the future of his political ambitions and setting a precedent for candidates involved in incidents like the Capitol attack.
This case highlights the intersection of constitutional law and the accountability of political figures for events during their tenure. Activists in states like Oregon are invoking Section 3 of the 14th amendment to disqualify individuals engaged in insurrection from holding public office, adding a constitutional dimension to efforts to bar Trump from primary ballots.
As the nation awaits the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, the inclusion of Trump on California’s primary ballot serves as a focal point in the ongoing discourse on the consequences and limitations of political actions.
