Status: 31.10.2023, 15:08 PM
CommentsShare
Former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally on October 23 in Derry, N.H. © Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post
Former President Trump wants to return to the White House in 2024 - a constitutional amendment could now prevent his name from being on the ballot.
Washington, D.C. – Courts across the country are beginning to challenge former President Donald Trump's ability to run for office again. Here is an overview of the current state of affairs.
What is the legal argument for Trump not being allowed to run for election because of the 14th Amendment?
The 1868th Amendment, ratified in 14, contains a provision designed to prevent individuals who sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War from holding office. Section 3 states that someone who has taken an oath to the Constitution and then participated in an insurrection may not hold certain offices.
Trump's opponents have challenged this part of the Constitution with lawsuits claiming he cannot run again because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and because of his role in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Read The Washington Post for four weeks free
Your quality ticket to the washingtonpost.com: Get exclusive research and 200+ stories for four weeks free.
Opponents of the ex-president file lawsuits: where do they take place?
Lawsuits are being filed across the country, with the first attention going to lawsuits in Colorado and Minnesota because they are moving the fastest. A Denver judge began a five-day hearing on Monday, and the Minnesota Supreme Court is expected to make its case later this week.
The Colorado judge's decision is expected in mid-November. The Minnesota court is required by state law to make a decision as soon as possible, but could refer the case to a lower court for a more comprehensive file before making a final decision.
Who is involved in the lawsuits?
The legal theory that Donald Trump cannot run is supported by an unusual mix of conservatives and liberals. Voters are suing with the support of monitoring groups such as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Free Speech for People.
0
Read also
0
Söder re-elected: FW man settles accounts with AfD speech in just one sentence - minutes of applause follow
READ
"Government faction in waiting": Green Schulze reaps resounding laughter in the state parliament
READ3
New rumours about Putin's death: Kremlin spokesman gives details
READ
Israel's Gaza Ground Offensive Underway: Hamas Gives Update on Fighting
READ
No drone deal for Putin: Neighboring country refuses exports to Russia
READ
Fancy a voyage of discovery?
My Area
In most cases, the lawsuits are directed against election officials, as they are responsible for deciding who appears on the ballots. In many cases, election officials have tried to stay out of the dispute, asking the courts to decide the matter without commenting on whether Trump should be allowed to run. Trump and parts of the Republican Party have intervened in some cases.
What is the timetable for the court proceedings?
The lawsuits need to move forward quickly as election season approaches and Iowa primaries are scheduled for Jan. 15. Many courts could rule after that, but the cases will become more politically complicated if more primaries are held in the spring. The Republican National Convention begins on July 15, and all sides hope to have the matter resolved by then.
State Supreme Courts asked: What happens after the first rulings?
The Minnesota case began in the state's Supreme Court, and the cases in the other states are expected to eventually end up in their top courts. The rulings of the state supreme courts can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court can take cases if it wants to, but it is not obligated to do so.
Will the Supreme Court of the United States get involved?
Legal scholars say it is unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a case if the states keep Trump on the ballot. The Supreme Court will almost certainly intervene if a state blocks Trump from appearing on the ballots, they say.
Violation of Section 3: Has this topic come up before?
Section 3 has received little attention since the period just after the Civil War – until recently. Last year, lawsuits against 3rd Representative Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) failed to prevent them from being on the ballot (Cawthorn subsequently lost his primary; Greene continues to sit in Congress).
However, a judge in New Mexico removed a county commissioner from office last year after he was found guilty of trespassing into the Capitol on Jan. 6. The state judge ruled that Couy Griffin, an Otero County commissioner and founder of Cowboys for Trump, could no longer perform his duties as a county official because he had violated Section 3. It was the first such decision since 1869, according to the plaintiffs.
What are the arguments against Donald Trump running for president again?
The courts will examine the wording and history of Section 3, which reads in full: "No one shall be a senator or a member of Congress or an elector of the President and Vice President, or hold any civil or military office in the United States or in any State who has previously served as a member of Congress, or as an official of the United States, or as a member of a state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State. has taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and who has taken part in an insurrection or rebellion against it, or has aided or abetted the enemies thereof. However, Congress can remove such an obstruction with a two-thirds majority in each House.
To exclude Trump from the election, plaintiffs must prove that he meets every aspect of the section. This gives Trump and his supporters many arguments against legal theory. Some of them are listed below.
Section 3 prevents certain individuals from holding office, but does it also prevent them from running?
Section 3 says nothing about running for office. Trump's supporters argue that election officials and judges can't stop him from putting his name on the ballot. If he wins, Congress will have to certify that he is allowed to hold office.
A look at the U.S. Constitution: Does Section 3 also apply to the presidency?
Section 3 states that it applies to senators, representatives, electors for the office of president, state offices, and federal offices "under the United States"—the last point being the only one that may apply to the office of president. Trump's supporters argue that these offices are for military officers and postmasters, not presidents. The plaintiffs say the presidency is clearly an office "under the United States."
Was the storming of the Capitol tantamount to an insurrection?
Trump's opponents say Trump can't stay in office because he instigated an insurrection, didn't put it down quickly and cheered on the rioters on Capitol Hill. Trump's supporters say the attack on the Capitol was not an insurrection. They point out that he was not criminally charged with sedition and acquitted by the Senate after being indicted by the House of Representatives for incitement to insurrection. Even if it had been an insurrection, Trump was not involved in it because he was not in the Capitol at the time.
Trump candidacy again: Should Congress decide the question instead of judges?
Trump's supporters say Congress is the body that should decide who is fit to be president, not the judges. They point out that Section 3 gives Congress the ability to decide, by a two-thirds majority, whether a rebel is eligible for president. The courts can't stop Trump from running because Congress could decide in the future that he can hold office, they argue.
Can Section 3 be applied alone?
Trump's proponents say Section 3 is not "self-executing," meaning it can't be applied until there's federal law implementing it and specifying how and when it's to be applied. Since there is no such law, the section cannot be applied, they argue.
Trump's critics say Section 3 is unambiguous and can be used, either on his own terms or through state laws that give election officials and courts the power to determine who can be on a ballot.
About the author
Patrick Marley writes for the Washington Post about election issues in the upper Midwest. He previously covered the Wisconsin Capitol for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
We are currently testing machine translations. This article has been automatically translated from English into German.
This article was first published in English by the "Washingtonpost.com" on October 31, 2023 - as part of a cooperation, it is now also available in translation to the readers of IPPEN. MEDIA portals.