Trump Challenges Maine Ruling Barring Him From Ballot

Donald Trump is appealing a Maine ruling that prevents him from running for president due to his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack. He argues that the secretary of state overstepped her authority and used biased evidence.

Former President Donald Trump has filed an appeal against a ruling by Maine's Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, which barred him from the ballot due to his role in the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol. This appeal is part of a series of legal challenges Trump is facing in multiple states, with critics seeking to disqualify him from running for president.

Challenging the Maine Decision

Trump's appeal argues that Bellows lacked jurisdiction in the matter and should be required to place him on the March 5 primary ballot. The appeal asserts that she abused her discretion and relied on untrustworthy evidence. Trump's attorneys also claim that Bellows should have recused herself due to her alleged bias against him.

Bellows Defends Her Decision

In response to Trump's appeal, Bellows reiterated that her ruling is on hold pending the outcome of the appeal. She expressed confidence in her decision and the rule of law, emphasizing the importance of upholding the Constitution and state laws. Bellows also highlighted that her decision is part of Maine's process, which should be respected.

Appeal to the US Supreme Court

In addition to the Maine appeal, Trump is expected to appeal a similar ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court directly to the US Supreme Court. The nation's highest court has never issued a decision on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who engaged in insurrection from holding office. The Colorado court's 4-3 ruling that Section 3 applied to Trump marked the first time in history that the provision was used to bar a presidential contender from the ballot.

Concerns and Criticisms

Critics of Trump's disqualification have filed numerous lawsuits in various states, but none succeeded until the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling. Some critics argue that the court overreached by declaring the January 6 attack an insurrection without a more established judicial process. They also warn that partisan election officials could potentially use Section 3 to disqualify opposing candidates.

Historical Context of Section 3

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is rarely used and has a unique legal history. Enacted after the Civil War, it was primarily employed to prevent defeated Confederates from returning to government positions. The provision states 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 Arguments

Trump's lawyers argue that Section 3 does not apply to the president and that the oath for the presidency is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, not to support it. They also contend that the presidency is not explicitly mentioned in the amendment, and the term "offices of the United States" does not encompass the president.

Counterarguments and Precedents

The Colorado Supreme Court strongly refuted Trump's arguments, stating that Section 3 disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist, including the president, and applies to virtually every office, except the highest one in the land. Legal scholars believe that Section 3 was only used once in the 20th century, when Congress cited it in 1919 to block the seating of a socialist who opposed US involvement in World War I.

Recent Applications of Section 3

Following the January 6 attack, Section 3 has been used in several cases. In 2022, a judge used it to remove a New Mexico county commissioner from office for entering the US Capitol on January 6. Liberal groups also attempted to block Republican Representatives Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene from running for reelection due to their roles on that day, but Cawthorn's case became moot after he lost his primary, and a judge ruled to keep Greene on the ballot.

Potential Implications and Concerns

Some conservatives express concerns that if Trump is removed from the ballot, political groups may routinely use Section 3 against opponents in unexpected ways. They suggest that it could potentially be used to remove Vice President Kamala Harris because she raised bail money for individuals arrested after George Floyd's murder in 2020.

As Trump's legal challenges continue, the outcome of these cases will have significant implications for his political future and the interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.