11 months ago
Maine’s top election official has to figure out whether to let former President Donald Trump on the ballot.
It's a question being debated in courtrooms across the country: Does the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bar Trump from running for president again because he supported or “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol?
Election officials across the country have had those very same deliberations, but behind closed doors. And they’ve been glad to defer to the courts and let judges decide a complex matter of constitutional law.
Challenges have been filed in dozens of states, with one major decision pending in front of the Colorado Supreme Court. Many legal observers expect that the U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately step in and adjudicate the issue.
But state law requires Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows to preside over ballot qualification challenges in a public hearing, which stretched on for hours Friday. But by even addressing the issue publicly, she opened a new front in the battle over Trump’s eligibility.
“Is it appropriate for me to adjudicate a complex constitutional question like that, posed by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, as part of an administrative hearing?” she asked one of the attorneys challenging Trump’s eligibility.
Bellows gave little indication as to which way she was leaning on that question — and on whether she would declare Trump eligible to be on Maine’s 2024 ballot.
Friday’s hearing was unusual in that it had all the trappings — and weight — of a court hearing. But Bellows, an elected Democrat, is not a judge. At one point, one of Trump’s attorneys, former Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, mistakenly addressed his arguments toward “this court,” before quickly correcting himself and addressing “this tribunal” and “this agency.”
Bellows said she intends to rule on the challenges by next Friday — and that her decision is appealable to the state’s courts.
Other secretaries of state from both parties have generally asserted that they do not themselves have the authority to make a determination on whether Trump is disqualified under the 14th Amendment. They’ve argued it is the role of the courts to make that call and have urged their state courts to do so.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat who has also been asked to disqualify Trump, said she’s confident Bellows would engage in the deliberations transparently, prioritizing the law and the constitution.
“The central question around the application of the constitution here, for every state, is one about timing and proper authority — who has the proper authority to make this determination and when is the proper moment to evaluate a candidate's constitutional qualifications,” Benson said in a text message Friday. “The state courts have offered varying interpretations of this thus far, but by and large have unanimously agreed this determination is beyond the purview of a secretary of state.”
The issue continues to make its way through multiple courts.
On Thursday, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s determination that state law doesn’t permit challenges to a candidate’s qualifications prior to the presidential primary election. “[B]efore Trump’s potential disqualification from holding the office of President could become a relevant concern, he would minimally need to prevail in the primary process,” a three-judge panel wrote.
The legal director of advocacy group Free Speech For People, which filed the lawsuit challenging Trump’s qualifications, said it plans to appeal the decision to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Late last month, Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade, a Democrat, said she would not remove Trump from the state’s primary ballot. In advising her, the state Department of Justice acknowledged that there is “already litigation in other states that may lead to precedential rulings on the application of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Friday’s hearing in Maine tread little new ground from previous court hearings. Trump’s legal team, including Gessler, argued that secretaries of state do not have the authority to make a 14th Amendment determination, that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to Trump and that he did not engage in insurrection to begin with.
“I think it is really an open question as to whether your office, or any secretary of state, has that authority,” Gessler said. “The weight of authority is the answer is no.”
The challengers — which included a bipartisan group of former state legislators — argued that Bellows does have the authority to make that call and should disqualify Trump.
Perhaps the most prominent challenge to Trump’s eligibility is in Colorado, where Gessler also represents the former president. A lower court there found that Trump had “engaged in an insurrection” but was still eligible to run because the 14th Amendment didn’t apply to the presidency as an elected office or to former presidents.
The Colorado Supreme Court heard arguments challenging that finding last week, and the justices gave little indication which way they were leaning or when they would issue a decision. Many legal experts anticipate that the ultimate decision will be made by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Erica Orden contributed to this report.
English (US)