Title: Michigan Court Rejects Attempt to Remove Trump from 2024 Primary Ballot
Word Count: 372
In a significant development, the Michigan Supreme Court has dismissed an effort to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot. The case, which was based on the US Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban,” sought to target Trump for his alleged role in the January 6 Capitol riot.
Although this decision is perceived as a victory for Trump, there is a possibility that the attempt to remove him from the general election could be revived. A similar move had been successfully executed by the Colorado Supreme Court, resulting in Trump’s removal from its primary ballot. However, the decision has been temporarily suspended pending an appeal.
These contrasting outcomes in Michigan and Colorado highlight the importance of potential appeals to the US Supreme Court as the 2024 primaries approach. Despite its dismissal, the Michigan lawsuit sheds light on the procedural grounds on which the case was rejected, with no consideration given as to whether January 6 was an insurrection and whether Trump was involved in it.
The absence of a provision within Michigan law, similar to Colorado’s election code, which would require presidential candidates to affirm their legal eligibility, played a significant role in the court’s decision. This ruling leaves an avenue open for future challenges based on the 14th Amendment, if Trump secures the Republican nomination.
Trump, taking to his newly launched social media platform, Truth Social, expressed his disapproval of the decision. He claimed that the upcoming 2024 election was at risk of being “rigged and stolen,” further emphasizing his concerns regarding the integrity of the electoral process.
While the legal director of Free Speech For People, the organization behind the Michigan lawsuit, found the decision “disappointing,” it is important to note that the ruling only holds within the state’s jurisdiction and does not have any binding effect outside Michigan.
The 14th Amendment, which bans officials who have engaged in insurrection, has only been applied twice since 1919 and does not specifically mention the presidency. The Michigan lawsuit, filed on behalf of a group of voters by Free Speech For People, also pursued an unsuccessful 14th Amendment challenge against Trump in Minnesota.
As the 2024 primaries draw closer, the legal battles surrounding Trump’s eligibility continue to unfold. The outcome of potential appeals and the interpretations of the Constitution’s insurrectionist ban are expected to shape the political landscape in the forthcoming election.
“Infuriatingly humble tv expert. Friendly student. Travel fanatic. Bacon fan. Unable to type with boxing gloves on.”