Subscribe to receive the Inside Washington email every day, featuring exclusive coverage and analysis of the US, directly to your inbox.
Receive our free email newsletter “Inside Washington” at no cost
Receive our complimentary newsletter “Inside Washington” via email without any charge.
Donald Trump’s lawyers have filed an appeal against the ruling of Maine’s chief election official to disqualify him from the 2024 presidential race due to his involvement in the January 6th insurrection at the US Capitol.
Last week’s decision from Maine’s secretary of state Shenna Bellows challenges his eligibility under a provision of the 14th Amendment, which bars any person who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office.
The former president’s false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him fueled the attack. According to her, this was not only an attack on the Capitol and government officials, but also on the rule of law.
According to the order, the evidence presented shows that these events happened under the direction, awareness, and backing of the former president. The US Constitution does not permit an attack on the fundamental principles of our government.
Her decision followed last month’s historic ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, which similarly disqualified the former president from appearing on the state’s 2024 presidential ballots, the first court ruling to do so amid a wave of lawsuits challenging his eligibility under the scope of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The case of Mr. Trump’s appeal will now be heard in Maine’s superior court.
His lawyers are anticipated to officially challenge the Colorado ruling to the US Supreme Court, setting the stage for a highly contentious case at the highest court in the country that could greatly affect Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and potential 2024 elections.
The highest court in the US has not made a ruling pertaining to Section 3.
Attorneys representing Colorado Republicans recently urged the Supreme Court to overturn the Colorado ruling. They claimed that the state justices’ interpretation of Section 3 could potentially allow anyone to challenge a candidate’s eligibility. They also warned that there is a significant possibility that this “faulty and unprecedented analysis” may be adopted and lead to a serious legal mistake being made.
The neutral organization that initiated the legal dispute in Colorado has requested the Supreme Court to quickly address the issue before the state’s March 5th elections. This will ensure that voters in Colorado and other states are aware of Trump’s constitutional eligibility before they vote in the primaries.
The ruling made by the highest election authority in Maine was a result of three different objections to Mr. Trump’s eligibility from Maine citizens and a group of government representatives. According to state protocol, the secretary of state is required to address these challenges before any others.
Following a thorough evaluation of the arguments in the previous month, she requested that both Mr. Trump and the plaintiffs submit briefs discussing the implications of the case. Additionally, she extended the deadline for a ruling to allow the involved parties more opportunity to submit and review their briefs.
However, in his appeal filed on Tuesday, Mr. Trump’s lawyers alleged that the proceedings were influenced by prejudice and a widespread disregard for proper procedure. They also argued that the decision was haphazard, unjust, and marked by misuse of authority, lacking substantial evidence from the case.
According to his attorneys, Ms. Bellows did not allow Mr. Trump enough time and opportunity to present a defense.
They claim that removing a candidate from the running for president is a political matter that should be left to the Electoral College and Congress.
According to Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment cannot be enforced on its own and requires legislation from Congress, which currently does not exist. This means that state officials have no role in enforcing this section.
Couy Griffin, a county commissioner in New Mexico who was found guilty for his involvement in the attack on January 6th, was permanently ousted from his position using a Section 3 “insurrection” challenge. This was the first successful effort in over a century to disqualify a government official from holding office.
According to Mr. Trump’s lawyers, he is not subject to the section in question because he has never held a position as an “officer of the United States” as defined by the amendment, and has never sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Ms. Bellows stated in her recent submission that she came to this decision after careful consideration.
According to Ms. Bellows, Mr. Trump knew about the potential for violence and initially supported its use by using inflammatory language and not taking prompt action to stop it.
“The weight of the evidence makes clear that Mr Trump was aware of the tinder laid by his multi-month effort to delegitimise a democratic election, and then chose to light a match,” she wrote.
Extra information collected and provided by Ariana Baio.
The source of this information is from independent.co.uk.
