Arecent report from Law and Crime on December 15, 2023, the Michigan Court of Appeals stood firm on its decision to uphold former President Donald Trump’s right to run in the Republican primary. The court dismissed attempts to exclude him based on the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause.
The ruling, reported last Thursday, supported the decisions of lower courts and underlined that, at this stage, there was no potential error. Citing relevant statutes, the court emphasized its conclusion.
Two lower courts, the Wayne Circuit Court and the Michigan Court of Claims, faced cases challenging Trump’s eligibility. These were filed on behalf of voter Robert Davis and others. The Court of Appeals rejected Davis’s argument that the Wayne County Election Commission could independently investigate Trump’s disqualification under the insurrection clause, citing statutes that did not authorize such an inquiry.
The court clarified that the mentioned statutes were meant for correcting later ballot errors and didn’t impose a duty to delve into complex constitutional matters. Placing Trump on the primary ballot, according to the court, was Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson following her statutory mandates.
Importantly, the court stressed it was unnecessary to determine at that time whether Trump engaged in insurrection or was disqualified from the presidency, echoing a previous decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
The Michigan court noted that Benson, a Democrat, had little discretion in deciding Republican candidates on the ballot for internal party elections, following directions from political parties and candidates.
Drawing parallels with the Minnesota case, the court found it improper to decide Trump’s disqualification from the presidency at that moment. It stated that, concerning the presidential primary election, there was no actual controversy.
A footnote in the decision acknowledged the Court of Claims’ view that the insurrection clause challenge presented a nonjusticiable political question, potentially applicable to claims beyond the primary election.
Legal experts pointed out that this decision does not exonerate Trump from insurrection allegations. Ron Fein, the legal director of Free Speech for People, expressed intentions to appeal the decision to the Michigan Supreme Court. Fein clarified that the Court of Appeals ruled on state law grounds without addressing insurrection allegations or alternative defenses.
