A Maine Superior Court judge has decided to suspend the veto imposed by the Secretary of State for Donald Trump to run in the primary (and then presidential, if applicable) elections. The judge has decided that Trump's veto for insurrection will not be applied until the United States Supreme Court rules on another similar case in which it has already admitted an appeal: the veto of the State of Colorado.
“The Court concludes that a return to the secretary [de Estado de Maine] “Awaiting the Supreme Court's decision on these unprecedented issues will promote consistency and avoid voter confusion in the weeks leading up to the primary elections,” Judge Michaela Murphy said in her ruling, issued this Wednesday. “The Court finds it essential to take into account the risk of voter confusion should multiple administrative or judicial decisions addressing President Trump's eligibility to appear on the primary ballot be issued before the Supreme Court rules. ”explains Murphy.
The parties have agreed to suspend the effects of the Secretary of State's decision and return the case to her so that, once the Supreme Court's doctrine is known, she can issue a new resolution within 30 days. The Secretary of State is a legal position, a kind of senior lawyer. “The parties' agreement on the suspension of the secretary's decision, along with this remand, minimizes any potentially destabilizing effects of inconsistent decisions and will promote greater predictability in the weeks leading up to the primary election. Therefore, the Court concludes that the remand of this matter is in the public interest,” Murphy writes in his 17-page ruling.
The judge points out that “it would be imprudent” to decide before the Supreme Court rules. “The acceptance of the Colorado case by the United States Supreme Court changes everything in terms of the order in which these questions should be decided, and by which court,” she says. The judge hopes that the magistrates will clarify the scope of the third section of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution, about which there are various doubts of interpretation.
Among the issues to be clarified are whether Trump's eligibility is a political issue that can be resolved only by Congress, as the former president claims. He must also clarify the meanings and scope of expressions such as “insurrection” and “participating in an insurrection.” Likewise, it can decide whether the rule is inapplicable to Trump because the president is not an “official of the United States” and has never taken an oath to “support the Constitution of the United States.” It is under discussion whether the rule allows the aforementioned people to run for office or only occupy said position. And also crucial in this case is what role state officials, including secretaries of state and state judicial officials, play in resolving disqualification claims filed under that provision.
The judges of the US Supreme Court have agreed to resolve the appeal presented by Trump's lawyers against the ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court, which excluded him from the primaries in that State. The highest court in the country has never ruled on the interpretation of section 3 of the 14th amendment and its doctrine will foreseeably be applied in the other states where Trump's eligibility is also at issue.
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without limits.
Subscribe
For the Supreme Court, it is its most important intervention in the electoral process since in December 2000 it decided to put an end to the counting of votes in the presidential elections in Florida, a decision that handed the White House over to Republican George W. Bush, who was disputing the decisive votes of that State with the Democrat Al Gore.
In Maine's appeal, Trump's defense argued that the Secretary of State's decision was “the product of a process infected by bias and a general lack of due process; is arbitrary, capricious and characterized by abuse of discretion; affected by an error of law; ultra viresand is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.”
Trump's lawyers believed that Bellows should have abstained due to his alleged bias against the former president and that he had no legal authority to make such a decision, even if it were true that he had participated in an insurrection.
The letter indicated that it is not the Secretary of State who must apply the 14th amendment, but that the disqualification of a candidate would correspond to the electoral college and Congress. The third section of the 14th amendment says: “Whoever, having previously sworn to support the Constitution of the United States as a member, may not be a senator or representative in Congress, nor an elector to elect president and vice president, nor may he hold any civil or military office under the authority of the United States or any State. of Congress, as an officer of the United States or as a member of the Legislative Assembly of any State or as an executive or judicial officer thereof has taken part in any insurrection or rebellion against the United States or has given aid or facilities to the enemies of the country. He adds that this veto may be lifted by Congress through a vote of two-thirds of each Chamber. It is an amendment passed in 1868, three years after the end of the Civil War, that sought to prevent Confederate rebels from occupying positions of power.
Trump's appeal argued that this provision is not automatically applicable and that it “leaves no role for state officials in its application.” The law, they argued, prohibits certain people from “occupying specific positions, [pero] not that they are presented to them or that they are chosen for them.” They also noted that “it does not apply to President Trump because he has never served as an 'official of the United States' and has never taken an 'oath to support the Constitution',” but rather the president's oath is to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution. .
They added that the amendment refers to any “official of the United States,” a term that, according to their interpretation, does not apply to the president. Curiously, in the New York civil fraud case, the former president's lawyers said that he should go to federal court because Trump was a “United States official” and the Prosecutor's Office successfully argued the opposite.
On top of all that, the lawyers claimed that Trump has not taken part in any insurrection. The public speeches on which Bellows' decision was based, including the one he gave on January 6, 2021 before the assault on the Capitol, are protected by freedom of expression, the appeal noted. The arguments of Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court against the Colorado case are very similar.
Subscribe here to newsletter from EL PAÍS América and receive all the key information on current events in the region
#Maine #judge #suspends #Trump39s #veto #elections #Supreme #Court #decides
