The Illinois State Board of Elections on Tuesday placed former President Donald Trump on the state’s primary ballot, a week before the Supreme Court. listen to the discussion The question is whether the Republican Party’s role in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 disqualifies him from being president.
The board’s unanimous decision was that the hearing officer, a former judge and Republican, violated President Trump’s constitutional ban on holding office for anyone “involved in an insurrection,” and that Trump should not be allowed to serve as president. The decision was made after finding that a “preponderance of the evidence” showed that he was not qualified to run as a candidate. .
However, the hearing officer recommended that the board leave the final decision to the court.
Lawyers say the eight-member board, made up of four Democrats and four Republicans, does not have the authority to decide whether Trump violates the U.S. Constitution and will keep Trump on the ballot. agreed with the recommendation.
Board member Catherine McCrory issued the following statement before the vote: “I want to be clear that this Republican believes there was an insurrection on January 6th. There is no doubt in my mind that he manipulated, incited, aided and abetted the insurrection. There’s no room for that.” January 6th. ”
But McCrory said he agreed the board did not have the authority to enforce that conclusion.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers told the board that the former president had never been involved in the insurrection and asked him not to, but argued that was not for the board to decide.
“We would recommend and urge the board not to pursue this matter,” attorney Adam Merrill said.
Lawyers for voters who objected to Trump’s presence on their ballots said they intend to appeal to Cook County Circuit Court.
Ace / SplashNews.com
“What happened here is a hot potato issue avoidance,” attorney Matthew Pierce told reporters after the hearing. “I understand what you want to do, but the law doesn’t allow you to lay low.”
The issue is likely to be decided in a higher court, with the U.S. Supreme Court scheduled to hear arguments next week in Trump’s appeal of a Colorado ruling that declared him ineligible to serve as president.
The nation’s highest court has never ruled on a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 to prevent former Confederate soldiers from being reinstated after the Civil War.
Some legal scholars have criticized Trump for his role in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and encouraging his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol after losing to Democrat Joe Biden. It claims that the clause applies.
Dozens of lawsuits have been filed across the United States seeking to remove Trump from office under Article III.
The Colorado case was the only one to prevail in court.
Most other courts and election officials have avoided the issue for similar reasons as Illinois, arguing that they lack jurisdiction to rule on murky constitutional questions.
Maine’s Democratic Secretary of State also ruled that Trump violated the 14th Amendment and is no longer eligible for the White House, but her decision is on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision. ing.
Trump’s critics say the plain language of Article III, which bars anyone from assuming office who takes an oath to “support” the Constitution and then “incites insurrection” against it, disqualifies him from being president. claims to be doing so.
They argue that former presidents are ineligible because they don’t meet the constitutional standard of being at least 35 years old.
AP
But Trump’s lawyers argue that this provision is vague and unclear, and that Jan. 6 does not meet the legal definition of an insurrection.
Even if that were to happen, they argue that Trump was only invoking the First Amendment and is not responsible for what happened, and that the Presidential No-Tenure Clause should not apply to him. do.
Article III was frequently used in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, but fell into disuse after Congress granted amnesty to most former Confederates in 1872.
Legal scholars have found only one example of this system being implemented in the 20th century – against socialists who had no seats in Congress because they opposed U.S. involvement in World War I. — and this system has only been used a few times since January 6th.
Illinois board members sidestepped the issue by concluding that all they could do under state law was evaluate the veracity of basic documents filled out by candidates.
The only way to remove Trump from office would be to conclude that he made a false statement under oath that he was qualified for the office he sought in that document.
AP
Board member Jack Brett (R) warned that it would set a dangerous precedent, given that dozens of election boards in the state are following the lead of the main elections board.
“If we allow them to say, ‘Don’t just look at the paper, look at the underlying suspicions,’ the floodgates will open,” Vrette said.
“Any potential school board candidate will seek to challenge the qualifications of their rivals based on allegations of criminal conduct,” Vrette added.
