ConstitutionsDonald TrumpElection 2024General NewsMichiganPoliticsRebellions and uprisingsTrumpVoting Michigan Court Upholds Trump’s Eligibility for Primary Ballot Amidst Insurrection Clause Challenge by Lucas Garcia November 15, 2023 written by Lucas Garcia November 15, 2023 4 comments Bookmark 33 A recent decision by a Michigan judge ensured former President Donald Trump’s continued presence on the state’s primary election ballot, thwarting efforts to leverage a Civil War-era constitutional provision against his candidacy. This verdict represents the second instance within a week where a state judiciary has declined to disqualify Trump from a primary ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause. Michigan’s Court of Claims Judge, James Redford, dismissed the notion that Trump’s involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol incident necessitated a judicial declaration of his ineligibility for presidential candidacy. Judge Redford emphasized that Trump’s compliance with state procedures for primary ballot qualification precludes his removal by the court. Judge Redford further expressed that the responsibility to determine Trump’s disqualification, as per the Constitutional clause forbidding office to those who partake in insurrection, rests with Congress. At a recent campaign rally in Claremont, N.H., Trump engaged with his supporters. The event was held on November 11, 2023, and captured in a photo by Reba Saldanha of the Associated Press. In his ruling, Judge Redford argued that the determination of what constitutes a rebellion or insurrection, and who is involved, should be left to Congress. He noted that a single judge lacks the capacity to represent the diverse perspectives of the entire nation, a role more fitting for the House of Representatives and the Senate. Reacting to the verdict, the liberal organization Free Speech For People, which has pursued similar 14th Amendment challenges in various states, announced plans to appeal the decision. They also requested an expedited review by the Michigan Supreme Court. Ron Fein, the Legal Director of Free Speech For People, expressed disappointment with the trial court’s decision and the organization’s intent to challenge it immediately. In response, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung criticized the series of legal actions as unfounded and politically motivated attempts by opponents to influence the electoral process through the courts rather than the will of the American electorate. Parallel legal actions have been initiated in other states by groups asserting Trump’s role in inciting the January 6 attack, an event aimed at disrupting the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential election victory in 2020. The seldom-used insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment, dating back to the post-Civil War era, is central to these cases. It is anticipated that one of the ongoing cases might eventually escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has yet to adjudicate on the insurrection clause. In a related development, the Minnesota Supreme Court recently allowed Trump’s inclusion in the state’s primary ballot, noting the constitutional eligibility issue does not apply in party-managed elections. However, the court did not close the possibility of a future lawsuit to challenge Trump’s eligibility in the general election. A forthcoming decision is expected from a Colorado judge on a similar lawsuit, with closing arguments scheduled for later in the week. Reported from Denver by journalist Riccardi. Table of Contents Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Trump Michigan Primary RulingWhat was the Michigan judge’s decision regarding Trump’s primary ballot eligibility?How does this ruling affect Trump’s candidacy?What reasons did the judge give for this decision?Has there been a similar ruling in other states?What are the implications of this ruling for the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause?Will there be an appeal to this decision?More about Trump Michigan Primary Ruling Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Trump Michigan Primary Ruling What was the Michigan judge’s decision regarding Trump’s primary ballot eligibility? The Michigan judge ruled that former President Donald Trump will remain on the state’s primary ballot, rejecting a challenge based on the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. How does this ruling affect Trump’s candidacy? This ruling allows Trump to continue his candidacy in the Michigan primary, marking a setback for efforts using the 14th Amendment to disqualify him. What reasons did the judge give for this decision? Judge James Redford stated that Trump complied with state law for primary ballot qualification and that decisions about insurrection involvement should be made by Congress, not a single judge. Has there been a similar ruling in other states? Yes, this is the second time in a week that a state court has declined to remove Trump from a primary ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause. What are the implications of this ruling for the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause? The ruling highlights the complexity and rarity of using the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment in disqualifying candidates, suggesting that it is a matter better suited for Congressional determination. Will there be an appeal to this decision? Yes, the group Free Speech For People, which brought the case, plans to appeal the ruling to the Michigan Court of Appeals and has requested an expedited review by the state supreme court. More about Trump Michigan Primary Ruling Michigan Judge’s Ruling on Trump Trump’s Candidacy and the 14th Amendment Legal Implications of the Insurrection Clause State Court Decisions on Presidential Candidates Congressional Role in Insurrection Determinations Free Speech For People’s Appeal Plans The 14th Amendment in Modern Politics You Might Be Interested In In a remote, dry patch of California, a battle is raging over carrots Indictment Alleges Hells Angels Members Assaulted Three Black Individuals in San Diego’s Ocean Beach Area Russian Missile Attack on Ukrainian Village Results in 51 Fatalities, According to Ukrainian Authorities, While Zelenskyy Solicits Increased Western Backing Company gets $2.6 million to relinquish oil lease on Montana land that’s sacred to Native Americans Hate Crime in Illinois Results in the Death of Young Muslim Boy and Serious Injury to Mother, Authorities Attribute Motivation to Israel-Hamas Conflict Investigation Underway Following Explosion at Arlington Residence During Police Operation ConstitutionsDonald TrumpElection 2024General Newsinsurrection clauseMichiganMichigan Court DecisionRebellions and uprisingsTrumpTrump 2024voting Share 0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail Lucas Garcia Following Author Lucas Garcia, a seasoned business reporter, brings you the latest updates and trends in finance and economics. With a keen eye for market analysis and a knack for spotting investment prospects, he keeps investors informed and ahead of the curve. previous post A Fresh Start for ‘The Hunger Games’ Sans Katniss in ‘The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes’ next post Lush, private Northern California estate is site for Xi-Biden meeting You may also like Bookmark A woman who burned Wyoming’s only full-service abortion... December 28, 2023 Bookmark Argument over Christmas gifts turns deadly as 14-year-old... December 28, 2023 Bookmark Danny Masterson sent to state prison to serve... December 28, 2023 Bookmark Hong Kong man jailed for 6 years after... December 28, 2023 Bookmark AP concludes at least hundreds died in floods... December 28, 2023 Bookmark Live updates | Israeli forces raid a West... December 28, 2023 4 comments Mike87 November 15, 2023 - 9:59 am wow, didn’t expect this kind of decision. thought the 14th amendment was clear on this, guess not? Reply JohnDoe November 15, 2023 - 11:14 am interesting ruling but what happens next? seems like it’s far from over, these appeals could change everything Reply SarahBee November 15, 2023 - 2:14 pm This is just another example of the legal system being too lenient. Trump should definitly not be on the ballot. Reply LegalEagle22 November 15, 2023 - 4:23 pm As a law student, I’m fascinated by the use of the insurrection clause here. It’s not often we see such a direct application in modern politics. Reply Leave a Comment Cancel Reply Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Δ