Illinois’ election board on Tuesday kept former President Donald Trump on the state’s primary ballot, a week before the US Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the Republican’s role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol disqualified him from the presidency.
The board’s unanimous decision came after its hearing officer, a retired judge and Republican, found that a “preponderance of the evidence” showed Trump was unfit to run for president because he violated the constitution’s ban on those “engaged in rebellion” from holding office.
But the hearing officer recommended the board let the court make the final decision.
The eight-member board, made up of four Democrats and four Republicans, agreed with a recommendation from his lawyers to allow Trump to remain on the ballot by determining it did not have the authority to determine whether he violated the US Constitution.
Board member Catherine McCrory led her vote with a statement: “I want to be clear that these Republicans believe that there was an uprising on January 6th. There is no doubt in my mind that he manipulated, instigated, aided and abetted the rebellion against Jan 6.”
But McCrory said he agreed the board lacked jurisdiction to enforce that conclusion.
The Illinois board of elections kept Donald Trump in the state’s primary vote, a week before the US Supreme Court heard arguments on whether his role in the January 6, 2021, attacks disqualifies him from the presidency. Getty Images
Trump’s lawyers urged the board not to get involved, arguing that the former president had never been involved in rebellion but that was not something that could be determined.
“We would recommend and urge the board not to get involved in this matter,” attorney Adam Merrill said.
An attorney for voters who protested Trump’s presence on the ballot said they would appeal to the Cook County circuit court.
The board’s unanimous decision came after its hearing officer found overwhelming evidence that Trump was ineligible to run for president because he violated the constitutional ban. Aces / SplashNews.com
“What’s happening here is dodging the hot potato issue,” attorney Matthew Piers told reporters after the hearing. “I got the urge to do it, but the law doesn’t allow you to duck.”
The issue is likely to be decided in a higher court, with the US Supreme Court scheduled next week to hear arguments in Trump’s appeal of the Colorado ruling that declared him ineligible for the state’s presidency.
The nation’s highest court has never ruled on a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868 to prevent former Confederates from returning to office after the Civil War but has rarely been used since.
Some legal scholars say the post-Civil War clause applies to Trump because of his role in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and encouraging his supporters to storm the US Capitol after he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.
Dozens of cases have been filed across the country to bar Trump from the presidency under Section 3.
The Colorado case was the only one to succeed in court.
Most other courts and election officials have dismissed the issue on similar grounds to Illinois, arguing that they lack jurisdiction to decide ambiguous constitutional issues.
Maine’s Democratic Secretary of State also ruled that Trump violated the 14th Amendment and is no longer eligible for the White House, but his decision was put on hold until the Supreme Court issues a ruling.
Trump’s critics argue he is disqualified by the plain language of Section 3, which bars those who take an oath to “support” the Constitution, then “engage in rebellion” against it, from holding office.
They argue that the former president is not eligible as he does not meet the constitutional threshold of at least 35 years.
“I want to be clear that this Republican believes that there was an uprising on January 6th. There is no doubt in my mind that he manipulated, incited, aided and abetted the uprising on January 6th,” board member Catherine McCrory said. AP
But Trump’s lawyers argued that the provision was vague and unclear and that January 6 did not meet the legal definition of insurrection.
Even if it did, they argued, Trump was only exercising his First Amendment rights and was not responsible for what happened and that the bar in office should not apply to the president.
Section 3 was widely used immediately after the Civil War, but after Congress granted amnesty to most former Confederates in 1872, it fell into disuse.
Trump’s critics argue he is disqualified by the plain language of Section 3, which bars those who take an oath to “support” the Constitution, then “engage in rebellion” against it, from holding office. AFP via Getty Images
Legal scholars can only find one instance of it being used in the 20th century — against a socialist who did not sit in Congress because he objected to US involvement in World War I — and it has only been used a few times since January 6.
Illinois board members sidestepped the issue by concluding that, under state law, all they could do was evaluate whether the basic paperwork a candidate filled out was truthful.
The only way to get rid of Trump is to conclude that he made a false statement when he swore under the paperwork that he was qualified for the office he sought.
The only way to get rid of Trump is to conclude that he made a false statement when he swore under oath that he was qualified for the office he sought. AP
Board member Jack Vrett, a Republican, warned that it would set a dangerous precedent, given the dozens of election boards in the state that follow the lead.
“If we allow them to say, ‘Don’t just look at the paper, look at the underlying claims,’ that will open the floodgates,” Vrett said.
“Every possible school board candidate will seek to challenge the qualifications” of their rivals, Vrett added, “based on some alleged criminal conduct.”
Categories: Trending
Source: thtrangdai.edu.vn/en/
