‘President Trump remains undefeated against these frivolous legal claims,’ spokesperson Steven Cheung stated.
The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision, ruling on Thursday that former President Donald Trump was eligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot.
“Nothing in the statutory framework that controls the process for presidential primary elections confers any authority on the Secretary of State to make eligibility determinations or to refuse to place a candidate on that particular ballot based on an eligibility determination,” the three-judge panel
wrote, echoing the lower court opinion.
The appeals court declined to rule on the issue of insurrection and did not hold an evidentiary hearing.
The Trump campaign declared victory once again, highlighting the fact that not a single of these “bad faith” challenges have succeeded in any state.
“President Trump remains undefeated against these frivolous legal claims and has never been in a stronger position to win next year’s election,” spokesperson Steven Cheung stated. “We look forward to the swift dismissals of all remaining ballot challenge cases and even bigger wins for the American people in 2024.”
After the Michigan Court of Claims
ruled last month to keep President Trump on the state’s primary ballot in response to activists suing the state, arguing he was disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, an appeal swiftly followed, filed in both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court.
On Dec. 6, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a surprising rejection to hear the case on an expedited basis, ordering the parties to proceed in the appeals court first.
One judge
dissented, given the timely nature of the matter and the court’s inevitable eventual involvement. But he also gave entirely contrary opinion to the Court of Claims, writing that he would have remanded it back to that court to do an evidentiary hearing. If that had happened, Michigan would have, like Colorado, proceeded to rule on whether the former president “engaged” in an “insurrection” and whether that was reason to remove him from the state’s primary ballot.
There were three
separate lawsuits against Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson: one brought by local community advocate Robert Davis, another by activist group Free Speech for People representing a small group of local voters, and one brought by President Trump, who had not been allowed to participate as an intervenor in the initial case.
Now the voters are expected to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, which may yet consider the issue of “insurrection.”
The state’s primary ballots must be ready by Jan. 13, 2024—45 days before the state’s Feb. 27, 2024, primary—so that they can be shipped to overseas military personnel.
Oral arguments were not made before the appellate court, which had
set a deadline for briefs by the end of the business day on Dec. 8.
Evidentiary Hearing?
The petitioners are seeking an evidentiary hearing that would allow for oral argument and testimony regarding insurrection and the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The voters suing the secretary of state had
argued on appeal that the political question doctrine did not put the issue out of a state court’s jurisdiction and that the Court of Claims had erred in ignoring their cited authorities. The bulk of the original case had argued that the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach had constituted an insurrection, but these arguments were not heard in the Court of Claims.
“Trump satisfies every condition of Section 3 to be disqualified from the Michigan presidential primary ballot,” the plaintiffs
wrote in their appeal brief.
The 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War, and included a section meant to prevent officers who left their post to join the Confederacy from returning to service, unless they were approved by a two-thirds vote by Congress.
In these 14th Amendment cases that have been filed around the country, plaintiffs argue that President Trump swore an oath when he took office as president and then allegedly engaged in an “insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021, thus disqualifying him under Section 3 of the amendment.
Attorneys representing President Trump or the Trump campaign have argued in various venues that the events of Jan. 6, 2021, do not rise to the level of “insurrection,” that he did not engage in such, that the oath he took is different from the one referenced in Section 3, and that Congress has the authority to determine this issue, not state courts.
