Michigan Supreme Court Rejects Attempt to Remove Trump From Primary Ballot
No one signed the order nor did it contain the vote count.
The Michigan Supreme Court chose not to hear an appeal that would keep former President Donald Trump off the state’s primary ballot.
JUST IN: The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected consideration of an effort to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot, affirming a lower court's ruling that permits a renewed challenge during the general election.
It's a brief order:https://t.co/77MzU1AyTA pic.twitter.com/nxNSRyPxgz
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) December 27, 2023
The Court wrote that “it is ‘not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court.'”
Unlike in Colorado, the Michigan lawsuit never reached a trial and was dismissed early on in the process. An intermediate appeals court upheld the decision to toss the case.
The Michigan Court of Claims judge who first got the case said state law doesn’t give election officials any leeway to police the eligibility of presidential primary candidates. He also said the case raised a political question that shouldn’t be decided in the courts.
His decision was upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which said: “At the moment, the only event about to occur is the presidential primary election. But as explained, whether Trump is disqualified is irrelevant to his placement on that particular ballot.”
Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote that Michigan’s law differs from Colorado, whose Supreme Court disqualified Trump from the ballot.
From The Detroit News:
Welch acknowledged the Colorado Supreme Court decision last week to block Trump from the primary ballot, but said Colorado’s election law differs from Michigan’s “in a material way” because it limits presidential primary participation to a “qualified” candidate who submits a statement of intent.
“The 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,” Welch wrote.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I have an ample supply of popcorn and ammunition on hand for the 2024 circus.
This will be interesting!
Agreed, but noting my Chinese ancestry I remind you of the concept of “interesting times”. Things might go Tango Uniform quite smartly.
Subotai Bahadur
So they found a way to avoid looking like complete Dem tools. Good on them.
Can the SCOTUS do likewise?
Sorry for the accidental down vote!
SCOTUS will not even have to address the question of whether Trump is an “insurrectionist” or not.
The amendment’s first section reinforces the ideal of a universal right to “due process of law,” and does not except the amendment’s section 3 from the requirement for same. Without a conviction, “Trump as insurrectionist” is a fact not in evidence.
The amendment’s fifth section gave Congress “the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of” the amendment. Nothing in the amendment gave similar authority (as appears in Amendments 17 and 18) to the states. State courts have no authority to consider the question or to take any action relative to the amendment, or at least not without having in hand a conviction from a competent (federal) court.
These are but two ways SCOTUS can dispose of this issue. I believe these issues are clear-cut enough that the decision will be 9-0, as these arguments aren’t controversial as is the question of Trump’s connection to the events of 1/6, or whether or not the amendment even applies to him.
Of course they don’t, this is a clear cut slam dunk without even talking about immunity.
There is a specific law and statute for insurrection, which Trump has not even been CHARGED with, much less convicted.
The idea that they can just wave a magic wand and declare ‘insurrection’ was nothing but delusional twisting of the law to meet their predetermined goal.
There are people (morons and politicians, but I repeat myself) on various social media platforms claiming that the 14th Amendment is somehow “self-triggering,” and does not require a trial. One particular moron was challenging people to show “Where does the amendment require a trial?” He apparently was fixated on section 3, and didn’t read sections 1 and 5 (even though neither are required to the reading of the amendment, if possible, in such a manner that it does not conflict with earlier provisions in the Constitution).
Also, I mention this because SCOTUS has a reputation of avoiding “hot wire” issues. But this situation can be resolved without going near the hot wire, so SCOTUS is more likely to hear and resolve the issue.
It is self-triggering, and doesn’t require a trial. Not in the sense of a criminal trial. It requires a finding of fact, but the trial court in Colorado did that. The judge, while finding for Trump, specifically and (it seemed) gratuitously put in a specific finding of fact that he is in fact an insurrectionist, and should remain on the ballot despite that. That was all the CO supreme court needed.
The actual facts, here in the real world, don’t support the trial court’s “finding”, but that’s a different argument.
Section 1 is irrelevant here.
That’s irrelevant. Congress does not control what the constitution means.
That is completely wrong. The first section says “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; the Colorado court did not deprive trump of life, liberty, or property, so he is not entitled to “due process of law”. The federal courts should overturn the decision for many reasons, but not for this one.
This is not correct either. Section 3 says that certain people are disqualified; no legislation is required to enforce that, any more than legislation is required to enforce the minimum age for presidents, or the citizenship and residence requirements. Again, Trump is clearly eligible, and the Colorado decision should be overturned, but not for this reason.
I clicked on the link to the Detroit News article. Read the comment section. The commentariat there believes the appellate court’s decision that upholds the lower court’s decision to keep Trump on the ballot is a good thing. But, not what it might seem to be. The comment section is a hidden treasure trove of Trump Derangement Syndrome written by mentally ill Democrats.
It’s not funny actually. these people are sick. When we hear the country is divided, the comment sections of liberal newspapers provide the proof.
There are I think more states trying this, hope none follow Colorado
So the majority said “we’re not even bothering to hear this”, and the one dissenter said “we should hear it and rule that Trump is eligible (at least for the primary)”.