An Illinois judge, making use of the insurrection clause from the 14th Amendment, ruled for the expulsion of Donald Trump, the former president, from the state ballot. The immediate necessity to suspend the decision arose, as a result of an appeal currently under inspection of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is also concurrently dealing with a similar case from Colorado that appeals to disqualify the leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination, citing allegations of association with the Capitol unrest dated January 6, 2021.
In her comprehensive ruling, Judge Tracie Porter from Cook County Circuit made it clear that her provision might not be the definitive result; the higher courts would get an opportunity to inspect the case, as referenced by WBEZ. Moreover, there are ongoing arguments debated concerning Trump being removed from Colorado’s ballot, whose legitimacy appears to be on shaky grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, is prepared to pass judgement on this dispute soon.
The timing constraint is given due significance, as the primary elections in Colorado are scheduled for Tuesday, marking the Supreme Court in a hurry to make a decision. Furthermore, Judge Porter made it clear that her decision might be overturned if the Supreme Court verdict doesn’t align with her own.
The voice of Samuel Alito, one of the conservative justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was heard last week as he protested that the obstruction placed on Donald Trump’s qualification to contest for presidency represented a substantial severity. The blockade had intended to remove Trump from the 2024 state ballot of Colorado, citing ‘insurrection’ as a motive. The constitutional legitimacy of this action became the focal point of the argument.
During a hearing at the national apex court last week, Alito conversed with Jonathan Mitchell, Trump’s attorney, to understand if Colorado was in the process of forming legislation that could impact other states at large. Mitchell clarified that Colorado does not adhere to the legal principle of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion — meaning that a party cannot re-litigate a matter already conclusively decided in a former court case. Consequently, it doesn’t draft a precedent for other states.
Towards the end of last year, the Colorado Supreme Court effectively made a judgment that Trump’s actions in relation to the January 6, 2021 events, were indicative of insurrection. On this fateful day, fervent supporters of Trump breached the Capitol building during the process of certifying the 2020 presidential election results. By a slim majority of 4–3, the state court proclaimed that they did not arrive at its decision lightly, considering the scale and impact of the questions under scrutiny.
The declaration by the court is not enforced right now, as the Supreme Court is contemplating an appeal. What’s worth noting is that there has not been an official criminal conviction of Trump regarding insurrection.
The court’s judgment in Colorado pertained to Trump’s prolonged efforts, encouraging his supporters to forestall the ‘alleged fraud’ perpetrated on the country’s citizens – a claim he presented without substantiation. Such actions of advocating his followers to descend upon the Capitol were deemed ‘overt and voluntary’. These acts, claimed the court, were indisputable.
The immediate cessation of attempts to invalidate the ballots, which could potentially disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and lead to mayhem and pandemonium – this is what Trump’s attorneys implored in their opening address to the court. Interestingly, the skeptical view of Colorado’s decision wasn’t exclusive to the conservative faction of the court.
Earlier this month, audio recording from a hearing revealed that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of President Joe Biden, identified a significant issue with the argument presented by Colorado. The argument hinged on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment permitting Trump’s removal from the state’s presidential ballot.
Jackson pointed out clearly that this particular section of the Fourteenth Amendment does not mention ‘presidency’. It instead states that 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…suport 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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.’
Jackson questioned Jason Murray, the attorney representing the group trying to disqualify Trump from Colorado’s ballot and presented a powerful historical case. In her argument, she expressed doubts regarding Colorado’s interpretation of Section 3, showing due consideration for original meaning and judicial constraint. According to her, the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment was to prohibit ‘charismatic rebels’ from holding any position in the federal government, including the presidency.
Listening to this, she then challenged, ‘But then why didn’t they put the word ‘president’ in the very enumerated list in Section 3?’ In effect, pointing out the omission of ‘presidency’ from the mentioned list in the document.
She continued, expressing her apprehensions, ‘The thing that really is troubling to me is, I totally understand your argument, but they were listing people that were barred, and ‘president’ is not there. And so, I guess that just makes me worry that maybe they weren’t focusing on the president,’ she added further.
This dialogue highlights the complexity rather than a simple reading of the constitution. It calls attention to the critical task of interpreting an aged document in a modern legal and societal context, with respect to the evolving nature of political dynamics. This scenario provides a case, where the courts, both at the state level and the national level are compelled to ponder on severe implications.
The decisions made herein will likely reverberate beyond individual states and could define the contours of future election disputes, the understanding of insurrection, voter rights, and presidential eligibility. Therefore, it will be crucial to keep an attentive eye on the unfolding developments.
