The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an attempt to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot in a major win for the former president, reports US News & World Report.
The state’s top court said in a brief order that it would not hear an appeal to an earlier decision from an appeals court. The first judge who got the case in Michigan said state law doesn’t give elections officials the ability to police the eligibility of presidential primary candidates.
The state’s high court said that the appeal application was considered but denied “because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court.”
Trump applauded the ruling in a statement posted on social media.
“We have to prevent the 2024 Election from being Rigged and Stolen like they stole 2020,” the statement said.
The decision, which contrasts with a recent ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, tees up what is widely expected to be a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the matter.
So far, Colorado is the only state to consider the merits of the complaint, which is based on an obscure, Civil War-era provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that barred anyone deemed an “insurrectionist” from serving.
Known as the “insurrection clause,” the provision was originally meant to prevent Confederate soldiers from getting into office and undermining Reconstruction. It states that no one can hold office who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution but then engaged in an insurrection or provided help to enemies of the United States.
While the 133-page ruling from a split Colorado Supreme Court dealt with questions about Trump’s involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection, the Michigan courts only looked at procedural ground for the case and didn’t wade into such questions. The cases in Michigan and Colorado are among more than a dozen that aim to keep Trump’s name off of state ballots using the insurrection clause.
Free Speech For People, a group seeking to keep Trump off the ballot in several states, had asked Michigan to make a ruling on the case before Christmas Day. Ron Fein, the group’s legal director, said in a statement that Michigan’s narrow ruling did not address the core questions of the lawsuit.
“We are disappointed by the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision,” Fein said in a statement. “The ruling conflicts with longstanding US Supreme Court precedent that makes clear that when political parties use the election machinery of the state to select, via the primary process, their candidates for the general election, they must comply with all constitutional requirements in that process. However, the Michigan Supreme Court did not rule out that the question of Donald Trump’s disqualification for engaging in insurrection against the U.S. Constitution may be resolved at a later stage.”
Source: US News & World Report
