On December 29, 2023, Maine joined the ranks as the second U.S. state to prevent Donald Trump from featuring on the Republican presidential primary ballot, launching a series of legal battles questioning his eligibility for the 2024 presidential race. These challenges are rooted in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a constitutional provision prohibiting individuals who have participated in “insurrection” from holding public office.
Enacted in 1868 following the U.S. Civil War, Section 3 targeted former supporters of the pro-slavery Confederacy, aiming to prevent their involvement in the U.S. government. Advocacy groups and anti-Trump factions have leveraged this provision, asserting that Trump’s encouragement of his supporters on January 6, 2021, amounted to insurrection, as they attempted to halt the certification of the November 2020 election results that favored Democrat Joe Biden.
Maine’s top election official, Democrat Shenna Bellows, responded to a challenge from a group of former state lawmakers, contending that Trump, the leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination, did not meet the qualifications under Section 3. While Bellows directed Trump’s exclusion from the March 5 Republican primary ballot, the decision remains on hold to allow Trump to appeal to a state court.
Colorado took the lead by becoming the first state to bar Trump from a primary ballot. Its highest court, on December 19, ruled that Trump’s actions constituted insurrection. However, the decision is temporarily stayed, permitting Trump to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Notably, the Colorado Republican Party filed its own appeal on December 27, creating a pathway for Trump to remain on the primary ballot despite the state court ruling.
Trump and his supporters decry these disqualification cases as undemocratic maneuvers orchestrated by political rivals to hinder his return to office. His legal defense contends that only Congress has the authority to enforce Section 3 and argues that presidents are immune to disqualification. Trump’s legal team disputes the insurrection claim, framing his actions on January 6 as an exercise of his First Amendment right to free speech.
The Maine decision awaits review by state courts, while the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to take on the Colorado case, given its political significance and the complex legal questions it presents. The conservative majority on the court, which includes three Trump appointees, adds an unpredictable dimension to the potential rulings. The court might narrowly rule that Section 3 does not apply to presidents or that its enforcement falls beyond the purview of courts.
The rejection of ballot challenges in several states, such as Minnesota and Michigan, highlights the diverse outcomes in this legal saga. Courts in these states ruled that Trump cannot be excluded from primary ballots, with the eligibility for the presidency under the U.S. Constitution considered irrelevant to internal party primaries.
Challenges to Trump’s eligibility have spread to at least 12 states, with Oregon emerging as a closely watched battleground. The Oregon state Supreme Court is on the verge of deciding whether to entertain a lawsuit seeking to disqualify Trump from the state’s primary ballot.
As this constitutional quandary unfolds, the nation watches with bated breath, recognizing the momentous step a ruling against Trump’s eligibility would represent, carrying seismic political implications.
