On Friday, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision affirming former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on the state’s primary ballot.
“Nothing in the statutory framework that controls the process for presidential primary elections confers any authority on the Secretary of State to make eligibility determinations or to refuse to place a candidate on that particular ballot based on an eligibility determination,” the three-judge panel stated, echoing the opinion of the lower court.
The appeals court refrained from addressing the issue of insurrection and did not conduct an evidentiary hearing. The Trump campaign celebrated this outcome, emphasizing the failure of similar challenges in other states.
“President Trump remains undefeated against these frivolous legal claims and has never been in a stronger position to win next year’s election,” spokesperson Steven Cheung stated. “We look forward to the swift dismissals of all remaining ballot challenge cases and even bigger wins for the American people in 2024.”
Following a ruling by the Michigan Court of Claims last month to keep President Trump on the state’s primary ballot, an appeal was quickly filed in both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court. The appeal was in response to activists’ claims that Trump was disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Michigan Supreme Court, on December 6, unexpectedly declined to expedite the case, directing the parties to first proceed in the appeals court.
One judge dissented, citing the urgency of the matter and the court’s eventual involvement. He proposed remanding the case back to the Court of Claims for an evidentiary hearing. If this had occurred, Michigan might have followed Colorado’s lead in determining whether the former president “engaged” in an “insurrection,” potentially disqualifying him from the state’s primary ballot.
The lawsuits against Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson were initiated by local community advocate Robert Davis, activist group Free Speech for People representing a group of local voters, and President Trump, who was initially not permitted to intervene in the case. The voters are expected to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, which may consider the issue of “insurrection.”
The state’s primary ballots must be prepared by January 13, 2024, to ensure they are available for overseas military personnel before the February 27, 2024, primary. The appellate court did not hear oral arguments but set a deadline for briefs by December 8.
The plaintiffs in the case sought an evidentiary hearing for oral argument and testimony regarding insurrection and the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. They argued that the political question doctrine did not preclude state court jurisdiction and that the Court of Claims had erred in dismissing their authorities. The core of their case was that the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach constituted an insurrection.
The 14th Amendment, ratified post-Civil War, includes a section aimed at preventing officers who joined the Confederacy from returning to service without Congressional approval. Plaintiffs in these cases argue that President Trump, having sworn an oath as president, allegedly engaged in an “insurrection” on January 6, 2021, thus disqualifying him under Section 3 of the amendment.
Attorneys for President Trump and his campaign have repeatedly refuted this interpretation, arguing that the events of January 6 do not constitute an “insurrection,” that Trump did not participate in such, that his presidential oath differs from the one referenced in Section 3, and that Congress, not state courts, has the authority to resolve this matter.
Source: Resistthemainstream
Leave a Reply