As Donald Trump inches closer to potentially reclaiming the presidency, it is crucial to reflect on his eligibility in light of his actions related to the January 6 insurrection. The recent decisions made by the Roberts Court have enabled Trump’s name to appear on the 2024 ballot, despite his evident engagement in insurrection.
This article serves as the second installment of the five-part series titled “Protecting the Election,” where election law and policy experts explore the significant threats to the certification of election results both at the state and national levels.
A Supreme Court Ruling in Trump’s Favor
The Supreme Court’s decision, which cleared the way for Trump to be on the ballot, was not merely about extending criminal immunity to him. While the ruling regarding his federal election interference trial has garnered significant attention, another ruling, Trump v. Anderson, holds even greater implications for his candidacy.
In this case, the justices overturned a Colorado Supreme Court decision that sought to keep Trump off the ballot. Although the ruling pertained to the primary process in one state, it effectively undermined efforts across the nation to enforce the constitutional provision that prohibits oath-breaking insurrectionists from holding office.
Understanding the 14th Amendment
The relevant section of the 14th Amendment, known as Section 3, states:
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that Trump’s actions on January 6 constituted engagement in insurrection, emphasizing their duty to apply the law impartially, despite the public backlash.
Concerns of Political Consequences
Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concerns during the hearing about the ramifications of allowing states to disqualify insurrectionist candidates. He feared this could lead to a scenario where numerous states might take actions against candidates based on political affiliations. However, this reasoning fails to address the gravity of insurrection and its consequences for democracy.
Roberts and the court ultimately favored a ruling that allowed Trump to remain on the ballot, indicating a clear intent to sidestep potential political turmoil. While the justices reached a unanimous conclusion that states could not disqualify presidential candidates, the rationale behind this decision raises questions.
Implications for the Electoral Process
William Baude, a conservative law professor, critiqued the ruling, stating it lacked textual and historical basis. He noted that the Supreme Court’s handling of Trump v. Anderson avoided addressing whether Trump had engaged in insurrection. This omission is concerning, given the critical role of state authority in determining the eligibility of candidates for the Electoral College.
The ruling effectively allowed the court to evade the political firestorm that might arise from holding Trump accountable to the Constitution. This approach, coupled with the intimidation tactics employed against judges and election officials, demonstrates a troubling trend in safeguarding political figures from legal consequences.