Michigan’s Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, clarifies it’s not secretaries of state’s role to decide Trump’s future electoral eligibility, but courts’. Despite compelling arguments for Trump’s disqualification under the 14th Amendment, unresolved questions about his involvement in the Capitol riot and 2020 election disputes remain. Legal interpretations of the amendment’s phrasing and state laws on candidate eligibility vary. Timing of disqualification, state nomination methods, and ongoing criminal cases add complexity. Ensuring voters’ freedom to choose their candidate is crucial, avoiding ballot access becoming partisan politics tool. Courts, particularly the Supreme Court, are the appropriate venues for deciding on constitutional qualifications for office. Cases such as Castro v. Trump, and others in state courts, could potentially be dismissed on procedural grounds before reaching the Supreme Court, leaving state courts as the final deciders on candidate eligibility. Until a court rules otherwise, Trump will be on Michigan’s Republican presidential primary ballot in 2024. Upholding democracy in 2020 was a collective effort by officials, lawmakers, judges, poll workers, and attorneys. Future success depends on courts’ role in legal issue resolution and secretaries of state’s commitment to democracy.
No Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.