PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday appealed a ruling by Maine’s secretary of state barring him from the state’s 2024 ballot over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, contending she had no authority, that he incited no riot, never swore to “support” the Constitution and was not a government officer as stipulated in the constitutional amendment she cited.

Trump, whose front-running Republican candidacy could be threatened, appealed the Maine decision by Democrat Shenna Bellows, who became the first secretary of state in history to bar someone from running for the presidency under the rarely used Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That provision prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

The former president is expected to soon appeal a similar ban by the Colorado Supreme Court. That appeal would go to the U.S. Supreme Court, while Bellows’ action is being appealed to a Maine Superior Court.

Trump’s appeal on Tuesday asks that Bellows be required to place him on the March 5 primary ballot. The appeal argues that she abused her discretion and relied on “untrustworthy evidence.”

“The secretary should have recused herself due to her bias against President Trump, as demonstrated by a documented history of prior statements prejudging the issue presented,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.

Bellows reiterated to The Associated Press on Tuesday that her ruling was on pause pending the outcome of the appeal, which had been expected.

“This is part of the process. I have confidence in my decision and confidence in the rule of law. This is Maine’s process and it’s really important that first and foremost every single one of us who serves in government uphold the Constitution and the laws of the state,” she said.

Trump is expected to appeal a similar ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never issued a decision on Section 3. The Colorado court’s 4-3 ruling that it applied to Trump was the first time in history the provision was used to bar a presidential contender from the ballot.

The Colorado Republican Party has already appealed that state’s ruling to the nation’s highest court.

Trump’s critics have filed dozens of lawsuits seeking to disqualify him in multiple states.

None succeeded until a slim majority of Colorado’s seven justices — all of whom were appointed by Democratic governors — ruled against Trump. Critics warned that it was an overreach and that the court could not simply declare that the Jan. 6 attack was an “insurrection” without a more established judicial process.

A week after Colorado’s ruling, Bellows issued her own. Critics warned it was even more perilous because it could pave the way for partisan election officials to simply disqualify candidates they oppose. Bellows, a former head of Maine’s branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, has previously criticized Trump and his behavior on Jan. 6.

The Constitution’s Section 3 has been barely used since the years after the Civil War, when it kept defeated Confederates from returning to their former government positions. The two-sentence clause says that anyone who swore an oath to “support” the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection cannot hold office unless a two-thirds vote of Congress allows it.

Trump’s lawyers argue the provision isn’t intended to apply to the president, contending that the oath for the top office in the land isn’t to “support” the Constitution but instead to “preserve, protect and defend” it. They also argue that the presidency isn’t explicitly mentioned in the amendment, only any “officer of the United States” — a legal term they contend doesn’t apply to the president.

Trump made the opposite argument defending against his prosecution for falsifying business records by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, contending the case should move to federal court because the president is “an officer of the United States.” The prosecutors argued that language only applies to presidential appointees — Trump’s position in Maine.

The contention that Section 3 doesn’t apply to the president drew a scathing response from the Colorado Supreme Court last month.

“President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oathbreakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,” the court’s majority opinion said. “Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.”

As for history, Congress granted amnesty to most former Confederates in 1872, and Section 3 fell into disuse. Legal scholars believe its only application in the 20th century was being cited by Congress in 1919 to block the seating of a socialist who opposed U.S. involvement in World War I and was elected to the House of Representatives.

But it returned to use after Jan. 6, 2021. In 2022, a judge used it to remove a rural New Mexico county commissioner from office after he was convicted of a misdemeanor for entering the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Liberal groups sued to block Republican Reps. Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene from running for reelection because of their roles on that day. Cawthorn’s case became moot when he lost his primary in 2022, and a judge ruled to keep Greene on the ballot.

Some conservatives warn that, if Trump is removed, political groups will routinely use Section 3 against opponents in unexpected ways. They have suggested it could be used to remove Vice President Kamala Harris, for example, because she raised bail money for people arrested after George Floyd’s murder at the hands of Minneapolis police in 2020.

Trump and his allies have attacked the cases against him as “anti-democratic” and sought to tie them to President Joe Biden because the Colorado case and some others are funded by liberal groups who share prominent donors with the Democratic president. But Biden’s administration has noted that the president has no role in the litigation.

Those who support using the provision against Trump counter that the Jan. 6 attack was unprecedented in American history and that there will be few cases so ripe for Section 3. If the high court lets Trump stay on the ballot, they’ve contended, it will be another example of the former president bending the legal system to excuse his extreme behavior.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Trump appeals Maine ruling barring him from ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

DETROIT (AP) — A Michigan judge ruled Tuesday that former President Donald Trump will remain on the state’s primary ballot, dealing a blow to the effort to stop Trump’s candidacy with a Civil War-era Constitutional clause.

It marks the second time in a week that a state court declined to remove Trump from a primary ballot under the insurrection provision of the 14th Amendment.

In Michigan, Court of Claims Judge James Redford rejected arguments that Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol meant the court had to declare him ineligible for the presidency. Redford wrote that, because Trump followed state law in qualifying for the primary ballot, he cannot remove the former president.

Additionally, he said it should be up to Congress to decide whether Trump is disqualified under the section of the U.S. Constitution that bars from office a person who “engaged in insurrection.”

Redford said deciding whether an event constituted “a rebellion or insurrection and whether or not someone participated in it” are questions best left to Congress and not “one single judicial officer.” A judge, he wrote, “cannot in any manner or form possibly embody the represented qualities of every citizen of the nation — as does the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

Free Speech For People, a liberal group that has brought 14th Amendment cases in a number of states, said it will immediately appeal the ruling to the Michigan Court of Appeals, but also asked the state supreme court to step in and take the case on an expedited basis.

“We are disappointed by the trial court’s decision, and we’re appealing it immediately,” said Ron Fein, Legal Director of Free Speech For People.

In a statement, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung rattled off other losses in the long-shot effort to bar Trump from the ballot.

“Each and every one of these ridiculous cases have LOST because they are all un-Constitutional left-wing fantasies orchestrated by monied allies of the Biden campaign seeking to turn the election over to the courts and deny the American people the right to choose their next president,” Cheung said.

Left-learning groups have filed similar lawsuits in other states seeking to bar Trump from the ballot, portraying him as inciting the Jan. 6 attack, which was intended to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election win.

The two-sentence clause in the 14th Amendment has been used only a handful of times since the years after the Civil War. It’s likely that one of the active cases eventually will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never ruled on the insurrection clause.

Last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court sidestepped the issue by ruling that Trump could stay on that state’s primary ballot because the election is a party-run contest during which constitutional eligibility isn’t an issue. It left the door open to another lawsuit to keep Trump off the state’s general election ballot.

A Colorado judge is expected to rule on a similar lawsuit there by Friday. Closing arguments in that case are scheduled for Wednesday.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Michigan judge says Trump can stay on primary ballot, rejecting challenge under insurrection clause appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

DENVER (AP) — A liberal group on Wednesday filed a lawsuit to bar former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado, arguing he is ineligible to run for the White House again under a rarely used clause in the U.S. Constitution aimed at candidates who have supported an “insurrection.”

The lawsuit, citing the 14th Amendment, is likely the initial step in a legal challenge that seems destined for the U.S. Supreme Court. The complaint was filed on behalf of six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters by the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

It will jolt an already unsettled 2024 primary campaign that features the leading Republican candidate facing four separate criminal cases.

Liberal groups have demanded that states’ top election officials bar Trump under the clause that prohibits those who “engaged in an insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution from holding higher office. None has taken that step, looking for guidance from the courts on how to interpret a clause that has only been used a handful of times since the 1860s.

While a few fringe figures have filed thinly written lawsuits in a few states citing the clause, the litigation Wednesday was the first by an organization with significant legal resources. It may lead to similar challenges in other states, holding out the potential for conflicting rulings that would require the Supreme Court to settle.

Colorado’s secretary of state, Democrat Jena Griswold, said in a statement that she hoped “this case will provide guidance to election officials on Trump’s eligibility as a candidate for office.”

The lawsuit contends the case is clear, given the attempt by then-President Trump to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden and his support for the assault of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The Republican has said he did nothing wrong in his actions.

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, helped ensure civil rights for freed slaves — and eventually for all people in the United States. But it also was used to prevent former Confederate officials from becoming members of Congress after the Civil War and taking over the government against which they had just rebelled.

The clause cited in the lawsuit allows Congress to lift the ban, which it did in 1872 as the political will to continue to bar former Confederates dwindled. The provision was almost never used after that.

CREW and law professors of both parties contend the amendment is clear and is a qualification for president, just as the Constitution’s mandate that a candidate for the White House must be at least 35 years old and a natural born citizen.

But others note there is much unsettled about the provision and that a case involving this issue has not reached the justices in Washington.

The clause cites a wide range of offices “under the United States” and states that the provision applies to, including “presidential electors” — but not the presidency itself. There is a debate among some experts about whether Trump’s acts constitute an “insurrection” under the language of the amendment.

In its complaint, CREW asked the court to expedite the matter so it can be resolved before the state’s primary ballot is set on Jan. 5, 2024. “We understand that there’s great interest in states across this country about this question, and it needs to be resolved expeditiously so there’s clarity,” said Donald Sherman, CREW’s chief counsel, told reporters in a teleconference.

A Trump spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the suit.

Georgia’s secretary of state, writing in The Wall Street Journal, warned that using the 14th Amendment in this way could take the country down a dark path.

“For a secretary of state to remove a candidate would only reinforce the grievances of those who see the system as rigged and corrupt,” said Republican Brad Raffensperger, who drew Trump’s ire when he refused to declare Trump as the winner of Georgia in 2020. “Denying voters the opportunity to choose is fundamentally un-American.”

The 14th Amendment was used last year to bar from office a New Mexico county commissioner who entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. That was the first time it was used in 100 years. In 1919, Congress refused to seat a socialist, contending he gave aid and comfort to the country’s enemies during World War I.

Another liberal group, Free Speech For People, unsuccessfully tried to use the provision to prevent Republican Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina from running for reelection last year.

The judge overseeing Greene’s case ruled in her favor. Cawthorn’s case became moot after he was defeated in his primary.

CREW said it expects to file more cases in other states and anticipates that different groups may do so as well. It picked Colorado, its leaders said, because the state allows ballot challenges to go directly to court and it assembled a prominent roster of plaintiffs, including a former Republican leader of both houses of the legislature and a conservative columnist for the Denver Post.

There was another reason, Sherman noted: In 2015, a Guyana-born naturalized citizen lost his lawsuit to be included on the state’s presidential primary ballot, failing to convince a federal magistrate that the Constitution’s requirement that he be a natural-born citizen was unfair.

A federal appeals judge upheld that ruling barring him from the ballot. The judge was Neil Gorsuch, now on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post A lawsuit seeks to bar Trump from the primary in Colorado, citing Constitution’s insurrection clause appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.