We are following big breaking news this evening.
Maine's Secretary of State, Shena Bellows,
has decided that former President Trump is ineligible to appear
on that
state's 2024 Republican primary ballot because he incited an insurrection
at the US Capitol on January 6th,
almost three years ago. With her ruling,
Maine has now become the second state to say that
Trump is ineligible to appear on the
2024 Republican primary ballot. The Bella's decision comes a week
after the Colorado Supreme Court issued a similar ruling.
That ruling is now being appealed by both sides to
the nation's highest court.
The 9 Justices of the Supreme Court are being petitioned
to settle the issue of whether Trump is barred from
serving as President under section three of the 14th Amendment,
which bars any candidate from holding the office who engaged
in insurrection
in her ruling tonight, Maine Secretary of State wrote,
and I quote, I have little trouble concluding that the
events of January
6/20/21 were an insurrection within the meaning of section three
of the 14th Amendment.
The record establishes that Mister Trump over the course of
several months in culminating on January
6th, 2021 used the false narrative of election fraud to
inflamed his supporters and direct them to the Capitol to
prevent certification of the 2020 election and the peaceful transfer
of power. Mr. Trump was aware of the likelihood for
violence and at least initially supported its use given he
both encouraged it within with incendiary rhetoric and took no
timely action to stop it.
The weight of the evidence makes clear that Mister Trump
was aware of the Tinder laid by his multi month
effort to delegitimize a democratic election and then chose to
light a match
notes in the decision that she is aware it may
be struck down by the Supreme Court.
She also writes that she has paused the decision to
strike Trump from the ballot pending a likely Trump appeal.
Tonight the Trump campaign is vowing to appeal in state
court.
It calls the decision quote atrocious,
adding that it came from quote and I'm quoting of
her ruling leftist and a hyper partisan Biden supporting Democrat
who has decided to interfere in the presidential election on
behalf of crooked Joe Biden.
In her conclusion, the main Secretary of State writes quote,
I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever
deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on section
three of the 14th Amendment.
I am also mindful, however,
that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection.
The events of January 6th,
she wrote, were unprecedented and tragic.
They were an attack not only on the Capitol and
government and officials,
but also an attack on the rule of law.
The evidence here demonstrates that they occurred at the behest
of,
and with the knowledge and support of the outgoing president.
The US Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the
foundations of our government,
so we now have two states that have ruled that
Trump did engage in insurrection and should not appear on
their state's primary ballots.
Those decisions will now clearly be appealed to up to
the US Supreme Court,
which will decide whether Trump is a legitimate candidate entitled
to run for and hold the highest office in the
land.
The question is how will the nation's highest court rule
and when?
Here with me now to discuss our former deputy Assistant
Attorney General Harry Lippman and Mark Joseph Stern,
senior writer covering courts and the law for Slate magazine.
Thank you both very much for being here this evening.
Mark, let me come to you.
You, you first your reaction to the the decision by
The Maine Secretary of State.
This is obviously a really big deal and it feels
like the dominoes are maybe beginning to fall.
You know, when it was just Colorado that had gotten
out in front,
striking Trump from the ballot,
it felt like maybe it was an outlier,
an aberration. But now we have another state,
Maine, that has undertaken a very serious review through the
Secretary of State's office and reached the same conclusion.
The legal analysis are beginning to all point in the
same direction.
The evidence that Trump incited an insurrection in the terms
of the 14th Amendment,
it's starting to pile up.
And so I do wonder if I were a Republican
primary voter,
might. I think, you know
it's it's Trump who I support.
But it's time to start considering an alternative because there's
not even a
100% chance that this guy is constitutionally eligible to appear
on the ballot in
2024. You know, Harry, I read
lengthy excerpts from from the the Secretary of State's decision.
But maybe we should hear from
the secretary Bellows herself. She was on MSNBC in the
last hour.
Listen,
the record demonstrates that in fact the events of January
6/20/21, which were unprecedented and tragic,
were an insurrection in the meeting of section three of
the 14th Amendment.
And finally, in reviewing the facts,
presented the evidence, the law,
the history. We determined under the section three of the
14th Amendment
that Mister Trump engaged in insurrection and therefore was disqualified.
And so, Harry, Maine Law requires her Secretary of State
Bellows to make a decision before this goes to the
courts.
Two questions. And, and Mark alluded to this in in
his answer,
but she had to do a review.
This isn't just some decision that she came up on
her own.
Talk to us about how she came to this decision.
And will this decision have any bearing on how the
main courts consider this question?
So on the second, yes it will.
I mean, they'll take it and review it with some
deference.
How did she come to it?
Very similar to the Colorado Supreme Court.
It's a methodical, really well reasoned opinion,
pretty long, 34 pages. In particular,
the piece of it, Jonathan,
that analyzes whether he's an officer,
which was the disputed issue between the Colorado trial court
and Supreme Court.
She has a much longer sort of historically anchored analysis.
I really think it's hard to quibble with what she's
done under Maine law.
On the other hand, this makes manifest what was sort
of latent when as Mark said,
we had just Colorado, which is the US Supreme Court
is going to know that there's a
a real potential for a a patchwork
kind of pattern in the country where some for different
reasons depending on state law disqualify him,
others don't. I think that's going to be anathema to
them.
And yeah, it's a challenge because these are different state
law kinds of rulings and they can't just Willy nilly
slap them down unless they have one federal law principle
to do. And for example,
the the possibility of saying he's not an officer,
I think got more remote today based on her pretty
well reasoned analysis. And and and Mark
whether or not the Supreme Court has a 63,
the conservative supermajority the the,
the institution of the Supreme Court just as an institution
doesn't like patchwork patterns,
doesn't like to have different courts and different jurisdictions
ruling in different ways. So is it inevitable that the
Supreme Court will will take this case and and how
quickly do you think they will?
I I think the answer is yes.
The Supreme Court will take up these cases,
Colorado, Maine, perhaps more and hopefully decide them very quickly
because of course the primaries are right around the corner
and it is now a contested question whether Trump is
eligible to appear on the ballot.
But I think that the main Secretary of State's decision
tonight really creates a problem for the Supreme Court.
You know, if this were just Colorado,
the Supreme Court could have found some Colorado specific reason
to overturn the state Supreme Court to say,
well, Colorado law didn't provide sufficient due process to Donald
Trump that the Colorado Supreme Court didn't follow the state's
election code correctly.
Now we have a completely separate procedure,
separate set of election laws and Maine has reached the
same conclusion.
And so I do think this is going to force
the court to consider going big,
to consider issuing a big decision that for instance,
says Trump did not by definition engage in an insurrection.
That would be a hugely controversial ruling.
But I don't think the court can punch like it
might have even just a day ago.
It's going to have to get into the meat of
these issues and the country might not like its answers.
Well Harry, let's talk more about the that Colorado ruling.
Because Colorado voters who won a victory at the Colorado
State Supreme Court last week
today petitioned the Supreme Court to rule quickly.
They asked for oral arguments on January 19th and a
ruling by February 11th,
11th. How likely is that scheduled?
Well the schedule is not that unlikely.
And by the way I totally agree with Mark about
the complicating factor here.
They can't do a one off opinion this that that
is they're they're a party.
They intervene below. But the the petition everyone's waiting for
is
Trump's and that will come soon.
Remember, the stay that Colorado Supreme Court gave expires on
the 4th of January.
And that request, if he makes it for expedited treatment
or if Smith jumps in with that sort of request,
that's when I think you'll see the court hopping to.
I'm not certain whether this petition will trigger it,
but it is a virtual certainty that A they'll decide
it and B they'll decide it quickly also C they
wish they didn't have to for the reasons Mark just
said A polarized opinion would really look bad for the
court,
but they are stuck here.
Mark, how likely is it that Justice Clarence Thomas recuses
himself from any of these Trump related cases,
but especially the ballot access
cases? I would estimate that the odds are about 0%.
Jonathan, you know Clarence Thomas has of course participated in
previous January 6th related cases even though his wife Ginny
was involved in trying to overturn the election and was
actually at the Ellipse on January 6th.
I don't think this will be any different.
Even though the court has put forth what it calls
a code of ethics,
it is a non finding,
an unenforceable code. There is no person or body that
can require Clarence Thomas to recuse.
The decision is still in his hands.
And so, even though under federal law he clearly should,
I really don't think he will.