New uncertainty about the Trump disqualification question further weakens our democracy

As if we needed more uncertainty in the electoral process, consider these two very different decisions made last week regarding whether Donald Trump should be disqualified from running for president.

In Maine, Democratic Secretary of State Shena Bellows told President Trump: be disqualified from running in that state's Republican primary election. Across the country, California Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber said: reached opposite conclusion.

Weber, unlike Bellows.”Former President Donald Trump is included in the list of certified candidates for the state's March 5 primary.” But she openly acknowledged the difficulties the issue of disqualifying the former president poses for her and other election officials.

“Removing a candidate from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is not something my office takes lightly, and it is not something as simple as the requirement to be at least 35 years old to become president,” Weber said. Not,” he said.

Questions about President Trump's disqualification are not the kind of questions the Secretary of State or other election officials would ask. usually asked to answer. The discreet quality of their work is Strength that is rarely appreciated In a well-functioning democracy, inspire confidence in the integrity of the electoral process and in determining who controls access to the ballot.

The fact that they reached different conclusions about Trump's suitability for president Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies former president Prohibits it from appearing on primary ballots or from adverse decisions being made. michigan, minnesota and new hampshire, only The need for the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and set things right is growing urgent. In any case, by saying whether President Trump engaged in the insurrection and would be disqualified under Section 14 of Article 3.^th Fixed.

All of this adds to the chaos and drama that is unfolding as Americans prepare to begin voting in the 2024 presidential primary. Another blow to already wavering public confidence in American democracy..

vote show Currently, only about 1 in 10 people give a “high evaluation of the functioning of democracy in the United States and the extent to which it represents the interests of the majority of its citizens.''

Other polls i got you Less than half of Americans, 45 percent, are completely or very confident in the fairness of elections (22 percent say they are somewhat confident and 33 percent are somewhat or not at all confident). ).

Furthermore, in a 2022 CNN poll, “about half of Americans, 48%” Said “They believe there is at least some chance that some elected officials will succeed in overturning the results of U.S. elections in the coming years because their party did not win. There is.”

That is why the Supreme Court should grant this request. Created by six of the plaintiffs in the Colorado lawsuit It would expedite a review of the state Supreme Court's decision “to reduce voter confusion and ensure that key voters know and vote whether Trump will be disqualified from office.”

Colorado Republican Party encouraging The high court reversed the states' rulings, stating, inter alia , “The office of the president is not subject to the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Insurrection Clause is not 'self-executing,' meaning that it must be enforced only by Congress, and each state must The request is made to certify that the decision cannot be made. And by excluding Trump from the primary ballot, the state Republican Party's First Amendment right to organize would have been violated. ”

Although Secretary Weber did not explain why he reached his conclusion in California, Bellows announced: Opinions on page 34 He departed from the Colorado Republican Party's position on every point and justified his decision in Maine.

14, Section 3.^th Bellows said the amendment would apply to presidential candidates because “the office of president is a 'civil or military office under the United States,' and the president is an 'officer of the United States.'” , he said. It is written. “He repeatedly refers to the office of president as a government office.”

Bellows said the history of Article III also “strongly supports the idea that it covers the presidency.” …Congressmen, like their contemporaries outside Congress, including those who tried to keep Jefferson Davis out of office, believed that the presidency constituted an office when debating the language of Article III. Ta. ”

Regarding the question of whether Congress must act before a state can make a decision under Article III, Bellows said, “No action by Congress is necessary to effectuate the qualifications set forth in Article III.” concluded. He said the Supreme Court held that “there is no question that the Fourteenth Amendment is automatically enforceable without any accompanying law so long as its provisions apply to a preexisting set of circumstances.'' Ta.

Bellows said, “Like Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, it stands to reason that the Supreme Court would recognize self-enforcement…Section 3 does not require action by Congress to take effect.” he claimed.

Finally, unlike Mr. Pasti, a Colorado Republican, Mr. Bellows concluded that Donald Trump did indeed commit an insurrection and that disqualification would not violate any First Amendment principles. I attached it. As she said, “Mr. Trump, there is no precedent, and I don't know of any, for the First Amendment to invalidate qualifications for public office.”

Section 3 of 14 items^th Mr. Bellow said the amendment is “not a criminal penalty. … It is simply a qualification for office. … [and First Amendment principles] We must not override the clear command of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment: that government power may not be exercised by those who orchestrate violence against the government. ”

That's it!

Differences between the Democratic Party Bellows and the Colorado Republican Party on such fundamental issues are yet another reason why Americans see Trump's disqualification as a problem. This is just another skirmish in a highly polarized political environment.Or like the Trump campaign. Suspect Following Bellows' decision, “We are witnessing in real time the attempted theft of an election and the disenfranchisement of American voters.”

Recently, like Professor Richard Hasen observed“Until the matter is finally resolved, the pressure to disqualify President Trump will only intensify.'' Only a Supreme Court decision can override this.^th Fixed.

Who is former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson? Said Those words, which were said about the court as a whole 70 years ago, apply especially to the Trump disqualification case. “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”

Only the court's final decision will allow election officials like Bellows and Weber to step out of the spotlight and get back to the important work of running elections.

Austin Surratt (@ljstprof) is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law and Political Science at Amherst College. The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of Amherst College.