The Democratic State Secretary in Maine has removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential ballot based on the insurrection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Thus, Shina Bellows becomes the first election official to take unilateral action to prevent Trump based on this clause. This move comes as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to decide on the eligibility of Trump to return to the White House.
State Secretary’s Decision to Remove Trump from the Presidential Ballot in Maine
The decision by State Secretary Shina Bellows comes after a ruling earlier this month from the Colorado Supreme Court to exclude Trump from the ballot there based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling has been put on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether Trump is disqualified under this clause that prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office in government.
Trump’s Campaign Appeal and Bellows’ Ruling Suspension
Trump’s campaign announced that it will appeal Bellows’ decision to the Maine state courts, and Bellows has suspended her ruling until a decision is made by the state’s judicial system regarding the case. Ultimately, it is likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will issue the final ruling on whether Trump will appear on the ballot in Maine and other states.
Details of Bellows’ Decision and Its Impact on the Presidential Election
Bellows found that Trump is no longer eligible to run for his previous office due to his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, which violates Section 3 prohibiting those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding positions in government. Bellows made this decision after some state residents, including a bipartisan group of former lawmakers, challenged Trump’s position on the ballot.
Trump’s campaign immediately criticized the decision. Campaign spokesperson Stephen Chong said: “We are witnessing in real time an attempt to steal the election and deny the American voter their right to vote.”
Legal experts pointed out that Bellows’ decision underscores the need for the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not issued a ruling on Section 3 before, to clarify what states can do. Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California – Los Angeles, responded to the Maine ruling by stating: “It’s clear that these decisions will continue to emerge, and conflicting rulings will be reached (as many states keep Trump on the ballot despite challenges) until a final and decisive guidance is obtained from the U.S. Supreme Court. It certainly seems that the Supreme Court will have to deal with the fundamental aspects at some point.”
Impact of Bellows’ Decision on the Presidential Election in Maine
Although Maine has only four electoral votes, it is one of two states that divides them. Trump won one elector in Maine in 2020, thus removing him from the ballot there, should he emerge as the Republican nominee for the general election, could have a significant impact in a race expected to be closely contested.
This contrasts with Colorado, which Trump lost by 13 percent in 2020 and was not expected to compete in November if he wins the Republican nomination for the presidential election.
In her ruling, Bellows acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court will likely be the one to issue the final decision, but she stated that it is important for her to perform her official duty.
Bellows received praise from the former lawmakers who presented one of the petitions that compelled her to consider the case. Republican Kimberly Rosen, Independent Thomas Saviello, and Democrat Ethan Strimling stated: “Secretary of State Bellows demonstrated great courage in her decision, and we look forward to assisting her in defending her fair and just decision in court. No elected official is above the law or our Constitution, and today’s decision affirms this most important American principle.”
Responses
The Action on the Bielous Decision
Other Republicans in the state criticized the decision. U.S. Senator Susan Collins wrote on the social media platform “X”: “The decision by the Secretary of State will deprive thousands of Maine residents of the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice, and it must be revoked.” Maine House Republican Leader Billy Bob Faulkner stated, “It’s a phony decision akin to dictatorships in the third world, and it won’t hold up under legal scrutiny. People have the right to choose their leaders free from arbitrary decisions made by political parties.”
The criticism wasn’t limited to ordinary partisan lines, as Democratic Representative Jared Golden, who represents Maine’s second congressional district that Trump won in 2020, noted on “X” that he voted to impeach Trump due to the January 6 attack and does not believe he should win in the upcoming elections. Golden wrote, “However, we are a nation of laws, and therefore until he is actually convicted of insurrection, he should be allowed to run.”
Trump’s campaign on Tuesday asked Bielous to recuse herself from the case because she had previously tweeted that January 6 was an “insurrection” and expressed regret that Trump was acquitted in his impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate after the Capitol attack. Bielous refused to withdraw.
Shena Bielous is a former president of the Maine branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. The seven judges on the Colorado Supreme Court, which was divided 4-3 on whether to become the first court in history to declare a presidential candidate disqualified under Section 3, were appointed by Democrats. Two Washington D.C.-based liberal groups filed the most serious challenges to Trump in Colorado and a few other states.
This led Trump to view dozens of lawsuits across the country seeking to remove him from the ballot under Section 3 as a Democratic conspiracy to end his campaign. However, some of the most prominent advocates were conservative legal theorists who argue that the text of the Constitution makes the former president ineligible to run again, just as if he had not surpassed the age limit set in the document – 35 years – for the office.
Similarly, even prior to Bielous’s decision, election officials at the state level, whether Democrats or Republicans, had rejected requests to remove Trump from the ballot, stating that they do not have the authority to remove him unless ordered to do so by the court.
In California, which has the largest number of delegates in the 2024 presidential election, Trump was included in the approved list of candidates released Thursday for the state’s presidential election on March 5.
Secretary of State Shirley Weber faced political pressure to deny Trump’s candidacy in the state, including from Democratic Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, who raised in a December 20 message that she was “exploring every legal option” to remove the former president from the ballot in California. Weber later responded that she was relying on “the rule of law” and noted that the appropriate place to resolve electoral challenges is in the courts.
The timing regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is unclear, but both sides want it to be expedited. The Colorado Republican Party requested a rapid appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday, demanding an expedited timeline, and Trump is expected to file an appeal during the week as well. Advocates in the Colorado case on Thursday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt a faster timeline so that they can issue a decision before March 5, known as Super Tuesday, when voting is scheduled in 16 states, including Colorado and Maine, in the Republican Party’s nomination process for the presidential election.
Need to
The Supreme Court is first required to officially accept the case, but legal experts consider that a certainty. It seems that Section 3 cases are specifically designed for the Supreme Court, as they address an area of American governance that has little judicial guidance.
The provision was added in 1868 to prevent defeated Confederates from returning to their former positions in local and federal government. It prohibits anyone who has violated Section 3 of “supporting” the Constitution from holding office. This provision has been used to bar a wide range of former Confederates from positions ranging from local sheriff to Congress, but it fell into disuse after Congress’s pardon in 1872 for most former Confederates.
Legal historians believe that the provision was used only once in the twentieth century, when it was cited to deny a seat in the House of Representatives to a socialist who opposed American involvement in World War I. But since the January 6 attack, it has been revived.
Last year, it was cited by the court to remove a commissioner from rural New Mexico who entered the Capitol on January 6. One liberal group attempted to remove Republican representatives Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene from the ballot in 2022 under the provision, but Cawthorn lost in the primaries, so his case was dismissed, and the judge ruled in favor of Greene.
Michael Blood, a writer for the Associated Press in Los Angeles, contributed to this report.
Leave a Reply