A week after the Supreme Court of Colorado decided that former President Donald Trump was disqualified from appearing on its ballot because of January 6, 2021 and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies those who have waged an “insurrection” against the United States, the Michigan Supreme Court has rejected a similar attempt.
In the ruling, the court explained that it found the arguments against disqualifying Trump persuasive and was accepting them, and so it would not review the decision of the lower courts to not disqualify Trump from appearing on the ballot.
That ruling said, “On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED. The motions of Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, and National Republican Congressional Committee; Professor Kurt T. Lash; Constitutional Accountability Center; and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to file briefs amicus curiae are GRANTED. The amicus briefs submitted on December 22, 2023 are accepted for filing. The application for leave to appeal the December 14, 2023 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.”
Writing a dissent to that ruling in which she largely agreed but took pains to explain why the Michigan Supreme Court reached a different result than Colorado’s, Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote, “Significantly, Colorado’s election laws differ from Michigan’s laws in a material way that is directly relevant to why the appellants in this case are not entitled to the relief they seek concerning the presidential primary election in Michigan.”
Continuing her ruling, Justice Welch “appellants argue that the political parties are state actors for purposes of putting forward candidates for the presidential primary, and thus, the political parties are subject to the United States Constitution.” Then, explaining the problem and contrasting the Michigan election laws with Colorado’s, she said, “appellants have identified no analogous provision in the Michigan Election Law that requires someone seeking the office of President of the United States to attest to their legal qualification to hold the office.”
For reference, the 14th Amendment states, “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
In a Truth Social post about the ruling, former President Donald Trump wrote, “With today’s WIN in the Great State of Michigan, we are 35 and 1. Colorado’s voters are very embarrassed by what has taken place. If they didn’t have an essentially all Mail-In vote, I would WIN Colorado. The people there are GREAT!!!”
Ron Fein, the legal director of Free Speech for the People, which helped bring the Michigan case to remove Trump from the ballot, said, “We are disappointed by the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision. The ruling conflicts with longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent that makes clear that when political parties use the election machinery of the state to select, via the primary process, their candidates for the general election, they must comply with all constitutional requirements in that process.”
Continuing, Fein added, “However, the Michigan Supreme Court did not rule out that the question of Donald Trump’s disqualification for engaging in insurrection against the U.S. Constitution may be resolved at a later stage. The decision isn’t binding on any court outside Michigan and we continue our current and planned legal actions in other states to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment against Donald Trump.”
"*" indicates required fields