An Illinois judge invoked the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment to exclude former President Donald Trump from the state’s ballot on Wednesday.
The decision was promptly put on hold by Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter pending an appeal, as the Supreme Court reviews a similar case in Colorado seeking to disqualify a leading Republican presidential candidate for their alleged role in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.
Trump’s campaign spokesperson, Steven Cheung, indicated that they intend to appeal swiftly.
“Today, an activist Democrat judge in Illinois summarily overruled the state’s board of elections and contradicted earlier decisions from dozens of other state and federal jurisdictions,” Cheung said, calling it an “unconstitutional ruling.”
In her lengthy ruling, Porter wrote that she was aware that her “decision could not be the ultimate outcome,” given that higher courts will have a chance to weigh in, WBEZ reported.
The arguments presented for removing Trump from Colorado’s ballot seem weak, and the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to make a decision on the matter soon. With Colorado’s primary election scheduled for Tuesday, the highest court in the country is racing against the clock.
Furthermore, Porter warned that she would rescind her order if the Supreme Court’s ruling contradicted her own.
???? BREAKING: Illinois judge removes Donald Trump from the state’s ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 29, 2024
Last week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, known for his conservative views, expressed concern about Colorado’s strict ban on former President Donald Trump running for president.
\This issue was discussed during a hearing to determine the constitutionality of removing Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot under the pretext of “insurrection.”
In a session at the highest court in the land, Alito questioned Trump’s attorney Jonathan Mitchell about whether Colorado’s actions might set a precedent that could impact other states.
“Suppose there is a country that proclaims again and again and again that the United States is its biggest enemy, and suppose that the president of the United States, for diplomatic reasons, thinks it is in the best interest of the United States to provide funds or release funds so that they can be used by that country, could a state determine that person has given aid and comfort to the enemy and therefore keep that person off of the ballot?” Alito asked.
Mitchell clarified that Colorado does not adhere to the legal principles of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion, which prevent a party from re-litigating a matter already decided in a prior court case.
Therefore, the recent ruling in Colorado regarding Trump’s involvement in the events of January 6, 2021, does not set a precedent for other states.
In December, the highest court in Colorado made a significant declaration that Trump had incited insurrection during the Capitol riot. The decision was reached by a narrow vote of 4-3, with the court emphasizing the seriousness and complexity of the issues at hand.
The ruling is currently pending appeal before the Supreme Court. It’s important to note that Trump has not faced any criminal convictions related to charges of insurrection at this time.
The court in Colorado ruled that Trump’s “direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary.”
“Put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam,” Trump’s attorneys pleaded with the justices in their opening brief to the court.
Not only the conservative members of the court, but also Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Joe Biden, appeared doubtful of Colorado’s decision.
During a recent hearing, Justice Jackson highlighted a flaw in Colorado’s argument regarding the removal of Trump from the state’s presidential ballot based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
She emphasized that the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment does not specifically mention the presidency.
No individual who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it, or provided aid to its enemies, shall be eligible to hold a position as a Senator, Representative in Congress, elector of President and Vice-President, or any civil or military office under the United States or any State.
However, Congress has the authority to remove this disqualification by a two-thirds vote in each House.
During questioning by Jackson, Murray argued that historical evidence supported their case for removing Trump from Colorado’s ballot.
He also expressed doubts about Colorado’s interpretation of Section 3 and emphasized the importance of considering both the original intent of the provision and judicial restraint.
Murray further contended that the framers of the 14th Amendment aimed to prevent “charismatic rebels” from occupying federal government positions, including the presidency.
“But then why didn’t they put the word ‘president’ in the very enumerated list in Section 3?” she asked.
“The thing that really is troubling to me is, I totally understand your argument, but they were listing people that were barred, and ‘president’ is not there. And so, I guess that just makes me worry that maybe they weren’t focusing on the president,” she added.
AN ILLINOIS State Judge does not have the power or authority to remove Mr. Trump’S name from the ballot of a Federal Election. I am an attorney , and this is a simple fact of law.
The judge is a judge because he could not make it in our very competitive business of being a lawyer.
His only claim to fame is his lack of knowledge of the LAW and his hatred of President Trump.
Totally true my legal friend. the whole case is false from charge to conviction and if the Supreme Court does not recind the whole case then we as citizens of the only truely free nation ever in the world are doomed to slavery of the Marxist running the high positions in the nation today
How can Pres. Trump be removed from the ballot based on a Civil War “insurrectionist” law, when he has NEVER been charged with insurrection? Their use of the 14th Amendment in this way is “iffy,” ANYHOW, since that Amendment was written to apply SOLELY to Confederates who had rebelled against the Federal government, and might be trying to run for Federal offices after the Civil War.
Totally agree with your assessment. If nothing else, this would disinfranchize millions of voters which certainly would be unconsitituional albeit the Dems let illeals vote in elections. What the heck is wrong and how can we fix it to get this once great country back on track? Vote Trump back in! I am so sick of all the leftist, communist politics in this country done by the Dems and deep state that I could just upchuck!
Why don’t they also take Biden off all ballots. ya’ll trying to take Trump off. so Republicans need to take Biden off. He isn’t any better than Trump. Democrats are afraid they going to get beat. let the people of the USA make our choice not you pencil pushers
This cancerous idea to take Trump off ballots is messing with my ability to vote/elect who I want for President and clearly is interfering in my 2024 right to vote!! Just another bad idea from the Radical left hate Trump which should be evaluated as purely being a Hate Crime! Stop the fraud!
Maybe there should be serious consequenses when the Supreme Court determines your actions are Unconstitutional.
Eric A VAN COURT, That would be nice to hear the Supreme Court rule in favor of President Trump, but as many Americans know that the Supreme Court Judges placed in by Communist Muslim Obama and Communist Biden are not pro constitution and they just might rule in favor of the Communist Blue States to remove President Trump.
I hope I’m wrong but I’m not holding my breath.
Their major problem. No one was ever charged with insurrection, no one was convicted of it either. Therefore, that amendment does not pertain to this situation. If they try to push this, every democrat who lost over the last 30 years should also go to jail. Hillary, Gore, they all protested and wouldn’t admit defeat. Both of them lost because no one wanted them! Haven’t seen any charges brought against billary, have you?
Here is the real problem. They have been finding errors day after day concerning the 2020 elections. Not to mention the number of people who now feel that the election was compromised. Then you have the media blocking credible information that they claimed was more Russian disinformation concerning the idiots laptop.
The only problem with these rogue judicial decisions is that Trump has NEVER been charged nor convicted with insurrection. The judge who made this outlandish decisions Constitutional “background” is that he is a traffic court justice.
communists ,posing as democrats, are taking away the voters choice for elections
No ahole judge has the right to say who we can vote for!!!!