The Decision to Ban Trump from the Ballot sets a Dangerous Precedent for Democracy
By: Sophia Stafford
Donald Trump will spend quite a bit of time in court this year. He is facing 91 felony charges: forty in the classified documents case, thirty-four in the falsifying business records case, thirteen in the Georgia election interference case, and four in the January 6th election case. Among his dozens of felony indictments, however, there is one notable absence: engaging in an insurrection.
Trump is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics today, but one thing all Americans should be able to agree on is that citizens are entitled to their day in court, given to them by the Sixth Amendment. One would hope that someone is not punished for a crime before they have been found guilty. In the context of a presidential candidate being thrown off the ballot for engaging in insurrection, one would hope that the candidate has been, at the very least, charged with engaging in insurrection. The lack of evidence and disregard for the opinions of Americans reveals that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove Trump from the state’s presidential ballot, and similar acts in other states, are unconstitutional and set a dangerous precedent for American politics going forward.
After the 2021 election, on January 6th, Trump held a large rally where he repeated how “our election victory [was] stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats” and that “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Following his speech, several thousand Trump supporters forced their way into the capital, protesting the election results. Trump’s role in the protest is a subject of much debate. Some believe that his actions are inexcusable and unconstitutional, while others insist that he did nothing wrong.
In an unprecedented ruling, the Colorado Supreme Court has decided to bar Trump from the state’s presidential ballot. Their logic rests on The Disqualification Clause, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which states that “No person shall hold any office under the United States, who, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” They declare that because of Trump’s role in the January 6th capital attack, he is an insurrectionist, and therefore unfit to hold office. About a week later, Shenna Bellows, Secretary of the State of Maine, made a similar ruling, her logic nearly identical to the Colorado Supreme Court.
The issue with these decisions is that they fail to consider the time in which the 14th Amendment was written, and how the political landscape of our country has changed. The Disqualification Cause was implemented after the Civil War, following the Union’s victory, to prevent former Confederate officers from being elected to office by Southern people. In the 1860s, defining an insurrectionist was straightforward: a former Confederate, who had fought against the Union. However, in our modern day, defining an insurrectionist is much more complicated. The country is split nearly 50-50 on whether Trump’s actions leading up to the January 6th riot would qualify him as an insurrectionist. If American citizens cannot agree whether or not Trump engaged in an insurrection, what makes a handful of officials in state governments any more capable? Trump has not been charged with engaging in an insurrection. Why is that? The most plausible conclusion is that prosecutors do not think there is adequate proof, or that they cannot persuade a jury of American citizens to convict Trump on this charge. The state officials in Colorado and Maine are attempting to bypass the judicial system of our country, instead, acting on their own beliefs. By claiming that state governments have the ability to make such a decision, they are inflating their own jurisdiction, and ripping the people of power.
While at first glance, Colorado and Maine’s decision to remove Trump from the state ballot can appear as wins for Democrats, they set a dangerous precedent for future elections. The lack of proof and evidence needed in these rulings is concerning. If state governments can disqualify a presidential candidate simply because state officials declare they committed a crime, then what’s to stop conservative states from disqualifying Joe Biden for his involvement in foreign business fraud? What’s to stop state officials from disqualifying any candidate whose political ideology does not align with their own?
The country cannot lose sight of the long-term consequences of these decisions. By setting a precedent that allows for presidential candidates to be disqualified based on the assertions of state officials, we risk undermining the principles of due process that our judicial system rests upon. Democracy demands that all voices be considered. Whether or not Trump serves another term is a decision for our entire country, not just for a select few.
The Colorado Supreme Court has voted to remove Trump from the state’s presidential ballot (https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/)
Donald Trump is facing 91 felony charges, yet has not been charged with engaging in an insurrection (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/20/colorado-supreme-court-ballot-decision-helped-trump/)
