Former President Donald Trump has initiated legal action against Maine’s secretary of state after being disqualified from the state’s primary ballot due to his alleged role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. This move opens a new legal front in the ongoing debate over whether voters in certain states can choose the Republican frontrunner. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court is deliberating whether to hear a similar case from Colorado, which could have broader implications for Trump’s eligibility on ballots nationwide.
Election officials and courts in multiple states are examining whether Trump’s actions on January 6 trigger disqualification under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment, a Reconstruction-era provision. As of now, only two states—Maine and Colorado—have determined that Trump should be excluded from the primary ballots in the current year.
Colorado’s top court decision has already been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, while in Maine, the secretary of state, a Democrat named Shenna Bellows, made the decision rather than it being a court ruling. In response, Trump has chosen to challenge the secretary’s decision by filing a lawsuit in state court, marking the first step in his legal defense.
In the lawsuit, Trump accuses the secretary of state of being a “biased decisionmaker” and asserts that his disqualification resulted from a process tainted by bias and a pervasive lack of due process. The core issue revolves around a provision in the 14th Amendment that prohibits individuals from serving as president or a member of Congress if, after taking an oath as “an officer of the United States,” they subsequently “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” Secretary Bellows contends that this provision applies to Trump.
Bellows has temporarily suspended the impact of her decision, pending resolution through the legal process. In justifying her stance, she argues that the evidence indicates the insurrection “occurred at the behest of, and with the knowledge and support of, the outgoing President (Trump).” She emphasizes that the Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of the government.
Despite facing allegations of political bias, Bellows maintains that her decision is rooted in the constitutional interpretation of the insurrection clause. In a statement to CNN, she emphasized that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access, but no presidential candidate has ever been accused of engaging in insurrection. Her position underscores the unprecedented nature of the situation and the constitutional gravity of the events surrounding January 6.
The legal battle adds complexity to the broader discussion about the consequences of the Capitol attack and the accountability of individuals involved. The 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause, originally enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, takes center stage in determining the eligibility of political figures like Trump.
As Trump seeks legal remedies to challenge his disqualification, the case underscores the significance of constitutional provisions in shaping the political landscape. The outcome may influence not only Trump’s political future but also the interpretation and application of the insurrection clause in the context of modern challenges to democratic institutions.
The legal proceedings in Maine, along with the pending decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the Colorado case, set the stage for a broader legal and constitutional discourse that goes beyond the immediate implications for Trump’s presence on state ballots. The proceedings hold potential implications for the intersection of constitutional law, political eligibility, and accountability in the aftermath of unprecedented events in the nation’s history.