The U.S. Supreme Court will soon shut down the debate about whether former President Donald Trump is fit to appear as a candidate on the ballot in Republican presidential primaries nationwide. The Supreme Court’s decision to weigh in is significant, as there are few instances historically of the highest court ruling in ways that may impact the outcome of an election – the most notable being in the 2000 election of George W. Bush. By acting now in the early days of the GOP race, the Supreme Court may be able to forestall a crisis ruling closer to the inauguration date of a new presidential administration in January 2025.
U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Colorado Banning Trump from Ballot
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding whether the state of Colorado can bar former President Donald Trump from appearing on the Republican presidential primary ballot on March 5. Other states are waiting to see how the Court reacts to Colorado’s application of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, known as the insurrection clause, to keep Trump off the ballot for his actions related to the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Colorado Supreme Court Bars Trump from GOP Primary Ballot
On December 19, 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court declared former President Donald Trump ineligible to serve as the next President of the United States in a 4-3 decision, barring him from the state’s presidential primary ballot. This was the first time that Section 3 of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.
Maine Follows Suit Declaring Trump Ineligible
Maine’s Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows claimed that under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, President Trump is ineligible to appear on the ballot for the upcoming Republican presidential primary.
Supreme Court Reviews Case Ahead of GOP Presidential Primary
Maine and Colorado’s upcoming March 5 Republican presidential primary elections put pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case quickly, review arguments, and hand down their decision.
Colorado Decision Overturned Lower Court to Allow Trump’s Candidacy
The Colorado case originated with a district court judge who ruled that although he found Trump to have incited insurrection in the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, he could not apply the insurrection clause to the president. The decision was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, which overturned the initial ruling.
Inconsistent Ballot Rules Across States Threaten Electoral Integrity
Varying state approaches to keep Trump on the ballot or ban him challenge the entire democratic process. The Supreme Court must now set the standard for the whole nation to ensure fairness in the electoral process and avert a Constitutional crisis down the line.
US Supreme Court Historic Ruling on Insurrection Clause
The case before the Supreme Court will set a precedent, as it is the first time the Court will have ever ruled on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. It will clarify what states can do to find or discern a candidate’s fitness for office under the insurrection clause.
Opinions Come to Light in Wake of Colorado and Maine Decisions
In addition to the fury of many Republicans upset by state’s limiting their electoral choices at the ballot, other critics of the Colorado Supreme Court decision suggest that using Section 3 in the case of Trump’s actions in the January 6 attacks opens the door to various allegations of insurrection, including implicating different political officials in underperforming in protecting America’s borders.
Supreme Court Generally Stays Out of Electoral Politics
While the Supreme Court generally shies away from ruling on of-the-moment issues, it is the last and highest authority on matters that significantly impact Americans at the most critical moments.
Bush v. Gore and the Supreme Court
For instance, Bush v. Gore represented the first time the U.S. Supreme Court was directly involved in the outcome of a presidential election. In 2000, the justices granted George W. Bush the presidency in a 5-4 vote by ruling that Florida violated Bush’s equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Clear Electoral Outcomes vs. Court Adjudicating Election Outcomes
Such involvement of the courts as occurred in the 2000 presidential election presents an unsatisfying victory and an alarming loss on the respective sides– a clear electoral victory is preferable for the mass electorate to feel that each vote matters. Acting now, the Supreme Court may eliminate the need for adjudicating last-minute victories after the final vote in November 2024, when voters and candidates will have the most at stake and no time left to turn the course of the election.
Democratic Electoral Retribution vs. Institutional Preservation
As with so many fraught political issues of the past years, the debate resides between trusting the virtue and intelligence of voters enough to make their own decisions about a politician’s fitness on the one hand and intervening to preserve the unity and integrity of critical systems and institutions on the other.
Pending Outcome of the Court Case
It remains to be seen what the Supreme Court will decide after hearing arguments this week regarding the applicability of Section 3 to the presidency and whether states are legally justified in banning Trump from ballots.
