Donald Trump’s ability to run for president in 2024 may be challenged, according to almost all state election officials: Nothing about this is acceptable to us.
Republican Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft told NBC News, “I don’t think it’s the duty of the secretary of state to make a judicial ruling. “My job is to establish a system and environment in the state of Missouri wherein candidates can run and voters have access to, and the elections have security & credibility, in order to the people of the state can make a decision,” said the candidate.
The 14th Amendment’s Section 3 prohibits anyone who took a “oath” to maintain the Constitution of holding public office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the country. It is a rarely invoked provision of the U.S. Constitution. Trump should not be allowed to run for president, according to several of the former president’s detractors, because of this clause.
As they prepared state ballots for the forthcoming Republican presidential primaries, secretaries of state in New Hampshire, Arizona, Michigan, and Colorado have faced or are ready to confront legal challenges to Trump’s eligibility.
All 50 states and Washington, D.C.’s chief election officials were contacted by NBC News. Most people are opting to remain silent regarding whether the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause applies in this case.
Republican Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger criticized the challenges and possible challenges in an editorial post published in The Wall Street Journal, calling them “merely the latest means of attempting to short-circuit the ballot box.”
Trump’s unsuccessful attempt to get Georgia’s election results overturned in 2020 was centered on Raffensperger’s office. Before indicting Trump in Georgia, prosecutors there highlighted evidence included a phone call between Trump and Raffensperger in which the former president requested the secretary of state to calculate the number of votes he needed to defeat Joe Biden’s advantage in the state.
“Removing a candidate would simply exacerbate the complaints of those who believe the system is rigged and corrupt. It is profoundly un-American to deny voters the right to make their own decisions, stated Raffensperger.
The majority of other secretaries are keeping quiet about specifics, and some are also stating emphatically that final choices may not be best made in their offices.
Tahesha Way, the Democratic candidate for secretary of state in New Jersey, said through Alicia D’Alessandro, “At this time, we’re going to decline to comment on this matter.”
Patrick Gannon, a spokesman for the North Carolina State Board of Elections, stated that the body “generally does not comment on legal matters which may or may not come before it.”
Additionally, Rachel Soulek, the elections director for Republican-appointed South Dakota Secretary of State Monae Johnson, said the office is “aware of the situation” but had no further comment.
On the nearly unprecedented situation, which many believe will be decided by the courts, some are approaching legal professionals for help.
According to Cecilia Heston, a public relations representative for Nevada Democratic Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, the procedure for contesting a candidate’s qualifications may only start once the applicant files for office and is decided by the court, not this Office.
Jocelyn Benson, the Democrat who serves as Michigan’s secretary of state, told Ali Velshi of NBC News that although “the arguments for disqualification are extremely compelling,” “we also have to acknowledge we are in unknown territory here. The U.S. Supreme Court in particular, courts generally, have a crucial role to play in this.
The issue is currently in front of another Democrat, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold. Invoking the 14th Amendment, a group of Republican and independent voters in the state filed a lawsuit against her last week, challenging the inclusion of Respondent Donald J. Trump as a contender on the ballot for the Republican presidential primary contest in 2024 and any future elections.
The thought of the matter being handled by the courts was welcomed by Griswold.
She stated in a statement, “I am confident that this action will provide direction to election authorities on Trump’s eligibility as a candidate for office and I look forward to the Colorado Court’s substantive adjudication of the issues.
Trump has begun to weigh in on the objections, labeling them as “nonsense” and “election interference.”
In an interview with right-leaning radio presenter Dan Bongino last week, Trump compared this to a “banana republic.” It’s known as election meddling, and that’s what they’re doing. In the present, the 14th Amendment only continues that. This is absurd.
Other election directors claim that despite the candidate’s eligibility being in question, state law prevents them from removing the candidate off the ballot. Any attempt to impeach a candidate in Washington State would have to start with a voter petition.
Derrick Nunnally, a spokesman for Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, a Democrat, said that under Washington state law, any registered voter may go to court to contest the inclusion of a candidate on a ballot and request that a judge strike the candidate’s name from the ballot due to ineligibility.
Sarah Copeland Hanzas’ chief of staff, Bryan Mills, a Vermont Democrat, had a similar viewpoint. The Secretary of State’s office does not have the statutory right to restrict access to the ballot, he said, “except in cases where a candidate fails to provide the required number of valid signatures,” he said.
Some election officials believe it is too soon to talk about the 14th Amendment.
The office won’t be making “any determination this early,” according to Debra O’Malley, the communications director for Democratic Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin, because the state won’t have a full list of candidates until December.
No matter when or how they decide to address the 14th Amendment dispute, a number of election chiefs reported that their offices have received a flood of communications from concerned citizens.
Following conservative talk show host Charlie Kirk’s false claim that the state is attempting to exclude Trump from the election, hundreds of calls from Trump supporters in New Hampshire seeking assurance that the former president will be on the ballot next year flooded the secretary of state’s office this month.
Election authorities in South Carolina, meanwhile, said that voters there have “numerous” questions. The state election board in North Carolina, according to Gannon, has “received a high volume of emails & several phone calls concerning the 14th Amendment throughout the past couple of weeks.”