Michigan court denies request to exclude Trump from 2024 elections

By Al Mayadeen English
Source: Agencies
27 Dec 2023 20:08
1 Shares

The Michigan Supreme Court, in a concise decision, says it was not convinced that the issues raised should be examined by the court before Michigan's presidential primary scheduled for February 27.

Former US President Donald Trump waves after speaking to the media during the third day of his civil fraud trial in New York on October 4, 2023. (AFP)

The Michigan Supreme Court dismissed an attempt to eliminate Donald Trump from the state's primary ballot in the upcoming year.

Critics of the former Republican President sought judicial intervention to compel election officials to assess whether Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election results and his connection to the Washington riot should render him ineligible for future candidacy.

However, the Supreme Court, in a concise decision, stated that it was not convinced that the issues raised should be examined by the court before Michigan's presidential primary scheduled for February 27.

This marks the latest attempt to prevent Trump from being listed on primary ballots across various states based on the 14th Amendment, which prohibits officials who have sworn to support the US Constitution from holding future office if they "engaged in insurrection."

The big picture

The decision stands in contrast to a recent ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, which removed Trump from the state's primary ballot due to his alleged role in inciting the Capitol riot. The Michigan lawsuit, initiated by Free Speech For People in September, a pro-democracy advocacy group, follows similar unsuccessful 14th Amendment challenges against Trump in Minnesota and an ongoing case in Oregon.

The case was initially dismissed by Michigan's lower courts on procedural grounds, a ruling that was later affirmed on appeal. Consequently, the fundamental question of whether Trump participated in the insurrection was not addressed in the Michigan legal process.

Justice Elizabeth Welch, one of the four justices nominated by Democrats in the seven-member panel, recognized the Colorado ruling but highlighted material differences in Michigan's election law, where candidates must be deemed "qualified" to run.

"The 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," Welch wrote.