The Michigan Supreme Court recently dismissed an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot, citing procedural reasons and refusing to review the appeal that sought his disqualification based on the insurrection clause within the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This decision sharply contrasts with the Colorado Supreme Court’s recent ruling that disqualified Trump from the state’s primary ballot, citing a connection to the Capitol breach on January 6, 2021.
The Michigan court’s brief order, while not addressing whether Trump engaged in insurrection or the applicability of the 14th Amendment’s Section 3, denied the appeal, effectively allowing Trump to remain on the state’s ballot for the 2024 election. The lack of a signed order and vote count in Michigan’s decision further raised questions, with only one dissenting voice, Justice Elizabeth Welch, who expressed that the Court of Claims and the Court of Appeals erred in their analysis concerning Trump’s name on Michigan’s primary ballot.
The lawsuit against Trump in Michigan, filed by the group Free Speech for the People and a group of voters, aimed to disqualify him from the 2024 presidential ballot under the constitutional provision barring individuals engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding office if they previously swore an oath to the United States. This legal move, similar to the one in Colorado, has ignited numerous legal battles in various states, with over a dozen lawsuits seeking to challenge Trump’s candidacy under the 14th Amendment.
Republicans have responded to these legal challenges, with Rep. Clay Higgins introducing a bill to block the votes of states removing a presidential candidate from their ballots. Meanwhile, GOP state lawmakers in Georgia proposed a bill targeting President Biden in response to the decisions regarding Trump, highlighting perceived inconsistencies and accusing Democrat judges of employing a double standard.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling faced scrutiny and dissent from Judge Carlos Samour, who emphasized the importance of due process rights, expressing concerns that Trump’s rights might have been violated under the state court’s order. This ruling has sparked discussions about the application of due process and the judiciary’s role in disqualifying candidates from holding public office without procedural fairness.
Overall, the legal battles and differing court decisions regarding Trump’s candidacy for the 2024 election underscore the complexity and contentiousness surrounding the interpretation of the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment, raising questions about the application of constitutional provisions in electoral contexts.