In what is being touted as a sweeping victory for former President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court has ruled out the possibility of states excluding him from ballots based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgement, announced on March 4, 2024, came in response to a case involving Donald J. Trump and a group of Colorado voters, which had gained national attention due to its significant implications for the 2024 Presidential Elections.
Previously, the Colorado Supreme Court had sided with the petitioners, subjecting the former president to the mandate of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits individuals “having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution of the United States, [who] shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office again. Adopting a sweeping interpretation of this section, the state court had ordered the Colorado secretary of state to exclude the former president from the Republican primary ballot and ignore any write-in votes from Colorado citizens for him.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Colorado order stating, “Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.” The ruling establishes that only Congress, and not individual states, can create and enforce rules regarding the implementation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s provisions towards federal office seekers.
Interestingly, the judgement has avoided any analysis or pronouncement on whether Trump’s actions leading up to the notorious Capitol breach on January 6, 2021, could be legally categorized as an insurrection. This has defused an intensely debated issue that could have reshaped the political landscape substantially.
As per CNN’s Senior Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic, Justice Amy Coney Barrett provided a unique perspective on the judgement. She chastised her conservative colleagues for the breadth of their reasoning and admonished the court’s three liberal justices for trudging into politically charged waters.
This ruling has a broader impact, instantly invalidating similar legal battles seen in Maine and Illinois. However, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold expressed disappointment, concluding that the decision ultimately places the burden of saving democracy onto the American voters due to a nearly dysfunctional Congress.
This case has underscored the complexity of amending election policies and procedures and highlighted the Supreme Court’s role in governing the electoral process. It has also underscored the need for clear regulatory mechanisms to avoid future contention over candidature qualifications.
Information Box:
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment: Introduced after the Civil War to prevent ex-Confederates from gaining power, it disqualifies individuals who have previously taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution but have afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding any office in the United States. The implementation and enforcement of this provision are in Congress’ jurisdiction as clarified by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.
Reference 1: Source was extracted from supremecourt.gov, DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO [March 4, 2024] PER CURIAM.
Reference 2: CNN report – “Justice Amy Coney Barrett chastises colleagues on both sides in Trump Colorado ballot case” by Joan Biskupic, CNN Senior Supreme Court Analyst, March 4, 2024, 8:13 PM EST.
Reference 3: NBC News report – “Supreme Court rules states can’t kick Trump off the ballot” by Lawrence Hurley, March 4, 2024, 7:00 AM PST / Updated March 4, 2024, 11:43 AM PST.