Michigan Judge Hears Arguments on Case to Keep Trump Off Ballot

Former president and 2024 Republican Presidential hopeful Donald Trump speaks during a rally at Ted Hendricks Stadium at Henry Milander Park in Hialeah, Fla., on Nov. 8, 2023. Ricardo Arduengo/AFP via Getty Images

Michigan Court of Claims Judge James Redford heard arguments on Nov. 9 on a 14th Amendment challenge to former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on the state’s primary ballot.

He prefaced the first hearing by referring to the recent dismissal of a similar case by the Minnesota Supreme Court and to the several amici briefs that helped illuminate the issue. Three cases have been brought on the matter, with hearings scheduled throughout the day.

“I fully recognize that I am not the last word on this case,” Judge Redford said, expecting any ruling he makes to be appealed.

The 14th Amendment grants citizenship and equal rights to all people born or naturalized in the United States. Ratified after the Civil War, it also included a section that prohibited those who had participated in “rebellions” or “insurrections” against the nation from holding office.

Several states have heard or dismissed such challenges already.

Local Advocate

Local community advocate Robert Davis filed the petition in September, arguing that President Trump engaged in an “insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021, and that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson has an obligation to remove him as a constitutionally ineligible candidate.

Ms. Benson has declined to take a side on President Trump’s eligibility, arguing that Michigan state law doesn’t give her office the power to do so. Michigan Attorney General Heather Meingast, arguing for Ms. Benson, said they would defer to the judge’s position.

In Minnesota, Secretary of State Steve Simon took the same position, and the plaintiffs suing Mr. Simon in his official capacity said in the hearing they were willing to put aside the issue and wished to get to trying whether President Trump engaged in an “insurrection.” The state’s supreme court ultimately dismissed the case without prejudice, noting that the issue wasn’t ripe for decision and that primaries are a party function. The petitioners are allowed to bring the case forth regarding the general election ballot.

In Michigan, Mr. Davis is arguing that the state secretary’s office does, in fact, have the power to remove President Trump from the ballot.

State law includes candidate qualifications, but this isn’t the case for presidential primaries, according to Ms. Meingast. In a presidential primary, candidates submit an affidavit of identity that states that they’ve met the qualifications for seeking office.

However, making false statements on that affidavit is a misdemeanor punishable by law. Mr. Davis is arguing that this means that the secretary of state has the power and duty to investigate the validity of the statements in the affidavits and act accordingly.

Judge Redford said he wouldn’t be issuing a decision today but recognized that the case was on an incredibly tight deadline. Because Nov. 10 is a holiday, the state secretary’s office has until 4 p.m. on Nov. 13 to create the list of party candidates. The state political parties have until 4 p.m. the next day to confirm their lists.

Free Speech for People

Free Speech for People, the left-leaning group that sued in the Minnesota petition, is representing a handful of local voters in the Michigan case.

Attorney Mark Brewer argued that Minnesota’s voting law is “vastly different” from Michigan’s, which gives voters much “broader standing”; any voter can bring forth these candidate eligibility issues. In some of those past cases, the secretary of state had the jurisdiction to determine eligibility, he noted.

Ms. Meingast disagreed, reiterating her position that the secretary of state doesn’t have this power.

“We do not have a vehicle to engage in this analysis,” she said.

Ms. Meingast also pointed out that the relief the petition requests has nothing to do with granting the secretary of state this power. It requests that the judge rule President Trump ineligible and prevent him from being listed on the ballot.

Attorney Michael Columbo, representing President Trump, made additional legal arguments in both hearings and argued that only Congress has the jurisdiction to make this kind of eligibility determination. The judge pointed out that states have been given the duty to appoint electors who choose the president and vice president.

Mr. Brewer said the argument that 50 states deciding differently on such cases was a complete nonissue because any state decision would immediately be appealed, ultimately ending up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Donald Trump

The hearings were held back-to-back, with President Trump suing the secretary of state, arguing that she doesn’t have the authority to take him off the ballot, as was argued in the last case.

Mr. Columbo noted that the secretary of state agrees with their position that she doesn’t have such authority. Ms. Meingast said the secretary indeed holds that position, but seeing as it’s an open legal question in front of the court, they didn’t formally concede and would defer to the judge’s decision.

President Trump previously filed a motion to intervene in the first case, but the motion was denied.

During the hearing, the judge revealed that this new complaint from President Trump wasn’t verified. A local attorney for President Trump said he had a new version of the complaint that could be filed shortly, but Ms. Meingast noted that wouldn’t be the correct procedure to verify the complaint. This prompted a break so that lawyers on both sides could find the appropriate remedy.

“Everybody wants this case to move forward, and the other two cases, and so does the court,” the judge said, “so that we can get a decision from a higher court than this one.”

The judge ultimately allowed President Trump’s attorneys to file an amended complaint by noon on Nov. 10.