Michigan Supreme Court rejects attempt to remove Trump from ballot
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
closeVideo
Colorado Trump ruling is 'very, very disturbing and very anti-democratic': Wisenberg
Former deputy independent counsel Sol Wisenberg joins 'The Ingraham Angle' to discuss the Colorado Supreme Court's Trump ruling.
Read this article for free! Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos and more with your free account! Please enter a valid email address.
The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to remove former President Trump from the state's 2024 Republican primary ballot.
The decision comes after the Colorado Supreme Court last week disqualified Trump from appearing on that state's ballots in 2024. The disqualification, which was made under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, is related to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
"Significantly, Colorado's election laws differ from Michigan's laws in a material way that is directly relevant to why the appellants in this case are not entitled to the relief they seek concerning the presidential primary election in Michigan," Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote Wednesday, explaining the court's ruling.
Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social following the decision that "the Michigan Supreme Court has strongly and rightfully denied the Desperate Democrat attempt to take the leading Candidate in the 2024 Presidential Election, me, off the ballot in the Great State of Michigan."
TRUMP PROMISES TO REPLACE OBAMACARE WITH HIS OWN HEALTHCARE 'ALTERNATIVE'
Former President Trump speaks at a campaign rally on Saturday, Dec. 16 in Durham, New Hampshire.(AP/Reba Saldanha)
Welch said in the ruling "appellants argue that the political parties are state actors for purposes of putting forward candidates for the presidential primary, and thus, the political parties are subject to the United States Constitution."
"The appellants have also notified this Court that on December 19, 2023, a majority of the Colorado Supreme Court held that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and that therefore, under the Colorado Election Code, it would be wrongful for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot in 2024," she continued.
Welch noted that the Colorado ruling "was preceded by a lengthy evidentiary proceeding in a trial court that developed the factual record necessary to resolve the complicated legal questions at issue," and that the "effect of the decision from Colorado has been stayed for a short period, and Trump has indicated his intent to seek leave to appeal in the United States Supreme Court."
FBI, DENVER POLICE INVESTIGATING THREATS AGAINST COLORADO JUDGES WHO BARRED TRUMP FROM STATE'S BALLOTS
Former President Trump speaks during a rally on Sept. 20, 2023, in Dubuque, Iowa.(AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
She added, however, that "appellants have identified no analogous provision in the Michigan Election Law that requires someone seeking the office of President of the United States to attest to their legal qualification to hold the office."
The 14th Amendment states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Trump also said following the ruling that "this pathetic gambit to rig the Election has failed all across the Country, including in states that have leaned heavily toward the Democrats.
"Colorado is the only State to have fallen prey to the scheme," he wrote.
Free Speech for People, which says it helped file the lawsuit in Michigan "on behalf of a diverse group of Michigan voters," describes itself as a "national non-profit non-partisan organization."
"We are disappointed by the Michigan Supreme Court's decision," Ron Fein, its legal director, said in a statement Wednesday after the ruling. "The ruling conflicts with longstanding U.S. 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," Fein added. "The decision isn't binding on any court outside Michigan and we continue our current and planned legal actions in other states to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment against Donald Trump."
Former President Trump points after delivering remarks at a campaign rally at The Ted Hendricks Stadium at Henry Milander Park on Nov. 8 in Hialeah, Florida.(Alon Skuy/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Disqualification lawsuits relating to Trump's appearance on the ballot are pending in other states, including Texas, Nevada and Wisconsin.
Fox News' Adam Sabes. Bill Mears and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Greg Norman is a reporter at Fox News Digital.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
385 visitors
And the bitch slapping begins.
Surprising but Michigan just did it with less drama than Colorado.
Who’s next?
LMFAO!!! He said that in 2016, then spent 4 years saying, "it's coming out in 2 weeks". Fucking hilarious that ANYONE would believe him.
How the hell can anybody, with even half a brain, believe anything this compulsive serial liar ever says?
Oh, there are lots of people that will look you right in the face and tell you trump has never lied....ever.
I’ll allow this off topic rant but no more, they will get whacked.
It's a direct quote from your own article.
LOL
It's very obvious that it is a link to another story, as nothing in the article mentions Obamacare or what Trump will do with it.
Common practice to insert other story headlines into another story about the same person/thing.
Then the seeder should have deleted it when editing it. And trump IS the topic of the article anyway.
Aww bullshit. You saw what you wanted to see and jumped on it. You knew what it was had you opened the seeded article.
Hey Frosty ….. chill out ….. Happy New year bro
You didn't think any of them were going to try and defend these lawless bar Trump rulings.
Not a one will defend the dirty business of their radical judges.
Happy New year Buddy.
I gave you a thumbs up because I want you to have a good, non liberal new year....
Victory for common sense
I remind myself what is said of opinions....
I do think SCOTUS is going to take the case, hard for them not to actually.
I also think it's going to be a split ruling.
They will rule that Co has authority and control over their own elections to include what qualifications need to be met.
I also think they will overturn the CoSC use of the 14th sec 3 since a different venue ( that is equal too, or higher than them) had already issued an aquital on the charges of incitement of an Insurrection (just felt a disturbance in the force).
Without being able to use the guilty verdict they came to ( contrary to the other venues findings),they will not be able to use the 14 th sec 3. and their ruling falls apart.
If SCOTUS were to allow it to stand, they would be allowing a violation of the 5 th amendment double Jeopardy clause.
I don't see SCOTUS doing or allowing that to happen.
I owe this seed and it's readers a Mea Culpa, another discussion site I use a commentor pointed out my error of double Jeopardy and that impeachments don't count, so I was....wrong ( that thud you just heard and felt was my ex wife's and kids jaw dropping and hitting the floor).
I still think that when this is heard ,I don't think they will have a choice really. That the ruling will be split pretty much like I already said , states have sovereignity over the elections in the states, period.
This is where I don't think anyone can predict how they will decide.
I think they will look hard at Section 3 and answer some questions ,some hard some easy for themselves first. The current make up of the court has a tendency to look at history especially of the time something was written,I have no doubt some are going to do exactly that.
IMHO they will likely blend both the plain text, of what it says and what is not in the text but how it was historically applied when it was used most, post civil war politics and likely , I'm not sure right up to sometime in the1920s can't be sure because I haven't researched if it's been used after former confederates got too old for office either in politics or the military.
The big question on Sec 3, and I don't think SCOTUS CAN avoid this, is the need for a conviction ,(establishing guilt beyond ANY reasonable doubt) in a court of law required.
There's no reason to prevent or remove him from the ballot. Hurt feelings aren't justification.