Fri. Jul 5th, 2024

Here’s What SCOTUS Should Do With the Trump Ballot Cases<!-- wp:html --><p>Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel via Getty</p> <p>The <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/keyword/supreme-court">U.S. Supreme Court</a> needs to understand that the disqualification of former President <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/keyword/donald-j-trump">Donald J. Trump</a> under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from running again for President of the United States is going exactly as it should. The <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/keyword/maine">Maine</a> Secretary of State ruled in an administrative proceeding that Trump is disqualified, and the <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-back-on-colorado-2024-gop-presidential-primary-ballot-pending-appeal">Colorado Supreme Court</a> ruled similarly.</p> <p>Both states followed the law set forth in the <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/keyword/constitution">U.S. Constitution</a> that anyone who once took an oath to support the Constitution but then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to enemies of the same” cannot again serve our country. But four other states (Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, California) came out the other way, while fourteen other states (Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming) still have <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-fears-justices-he-appointed-may-keep-him-off-ballots-report">disqualification cases</a> pending. This sets up a potential <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/12/29/trump-14th-amendment-heres-where-lawsuits-challenging-ex-presidents-candidacy-stand-after-maine-official-disqualifies-him/?sh=1693601ebdcf">crazy quilt</a> map of states where Trump is on the ballot in some state but not in <a href="https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker">others</a>. There is nothing wrong with this. It’s <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.7-3/ALDE_00000032/">federalism</a> at work.</p> <p>Under the Constitution, the states have primary power over administering federal elections with Congress also possessing authority to regulate how the elections are run—voter registration being <a href="https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL30747.html">an example</a>. So, the fact that who can run, who can vote and the “time place and manner” in which voting takes place varies from state to state is normal—and, arguably, the high court need not concern itself with these issues. </p> <p><a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-what-scotus-should-do-with-the-trump-ballot-cases">Read more at The Daily Beast.</a></p><!-- /wp:html -->

Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel via Getty

The U.S. Supreme Court needs to understand that the disqualification of former President Donald J. Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from running again for President of the United States is going exactly as it should. The Maine Secretary of State ruled in an administrative proceeding that Trump is disqualified, and the Colorado Supreme Court ruled similarly.

Both states followed the law set forth in the U.S. Constitution that anyone who once took an oath to support the Constitution but then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to enemies of the same” cannot again serve our country. But four other states (Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, California) came out the other way, while fourteen other states (Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming) still have disqualification cases pending. This sets up a potential crazy quilt map of states where Trump is on the ballot in some state but not in others. There is nothing wrong with this. It’s federalism at work.

Under the Constitution, the states have primary power over administering federal elections with Congress also possessing authority to regulate how the elections are run—voter registration being an example. So, the fact that who can run, who can vote and the “time place and manner” in which voting takes place varies from state to state is normal—and, arguably, the high court need not concern itself with these issues.

Read more at The Daily Beast.

By