Illinois is the latest state to put former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on the primary ballot into question.
The voters are represented by Free Speech for People and Illinois co-counsel Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym and Illinois election lawyer Ed Mullen.
Free Speech for People has spearheaded the legal theory that President Trump is disqualified from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and therefore should not appear on 2024 primary election ballots.
On Jan. 7, 2021, the group sent letters to top election officials in states across the country, urging them to bar him from any future ballots.
Their theory hinges on the idea that Jan. 6, 2021, was an insurrection and President Trump engaged in it.
Legal experts helped advance the theory in recent months as about 60 challenges were filed across the nation, but some raised differing opinions as to whether states are allowed to enforce Section 3 disqualification.
Further complicating the issue is that states have different laws governing election procedures, giving their secretaries of state varying levels of authority to adjudicate a candidate’s eligibility.
“Our predecessors understood that oath-breaking insurrectionists will do it again, and worse, if allowed back into power, so they enacted the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause to protect the republic from people like Trump.
“Trump is legally barred from the ballot.”
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that: “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.”
The 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War, and Section 3 was meant to prevent officers who abandoned their posts to join the Confederacy from returning to office.
The Illinois petition mirrors other lawsuits the group has filed in Oregon, Michigan, and Minnesota, which describe the events of Jan. 6, 2021, as premeditated violence.
Challenges in Various Courts
While most jurisdictions have dismissed similar challenges, Colorado and Maine last month issued decisions disqualifying President Trump.Neither of the removals will go into effect, as both decisions were written to be stayed in anticipation of an appeal to a higher court.
The challenges to President Trump’s eligibility have been filed in various levels of court, and sometimes from multiple separate parties in the same state court.
A dismissal of one lawsuit would not necessarily prevent another group from bringing a related challenge in the same jurisdiction either.
Rulings in several courts have only raised additional questions as to whether the president is covered by Section 3 or only his electors, whether Congress is the only authority that can determine such a disqualification, and at what stage a candidate ineligible under Section 3 would be barred from the ballot.
The Colorado disqualification was the first, and the case has already reached the U.S. Supreme Court with the Colorado GOP and President Trump, both intervening parties, each filing their own petition for immediate review.
The Supreme Court has not yet accepted either petition.
Lawmakers and experts have called on the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a ruling that would put an end to the myriad challenges.
The High Court had rejected hearing a related challenge back in October, but the situation has changed with Colorado’s disqualification ruling, which set other states at looking into whether they should, or could, strike President Trump from the primary ballot as well.
Timing is paramount, as many states are running up against deadlines to certify primary ballots so they can be printed and mailed to overseas and military voters on schedule.
It also remains an open question as to whether state courts have jurisdiction over political parties’ primaries.
The Minnesota Supreme Court had ruled against that argument, dismissing a 14th Amendment challenge without prejudice, noting that such a petition could be filed in regards to the general election ballot.
