They are head strong on their verdict.
The recent decision by the Michigan Supreme Court regarding the presence of former President Donald Trump on the 2024 primary ballot in the state highlights a key constitutional debate. The court’s order, issued on Wednesday, dismissed an attempt to exclude Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which addresses the disqualification of individuals engaged in insurrection or rebellion after swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution.
In a concise statement, the court declined to entertain a case arguing for Trump’s exclusion from the ballot, stating that the presented questions did not warrant review by the court. This decision follows a similar rejection by the Michigan Court of Appeals earlier in the month. The appellate court, in a unanimous opinion citing state law, emphasized that the decision of who appears on the primary ballot lies with the political parties and individual candidates.
Similar challenges in Arizona and Minnesota faced legal barriers. The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to bar Trump from the 2024 GOP primary and general election ballots, citing that state law did not prevent major parties from including even ineligible candidates in the primary ballot. Notably, the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision diverges from the Colorado Supreme Court’s unique ruling, which prohibited Trump’s candidacy in the state’s primary on constitutional grounds.
Trump responded to the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision positively, expressing satisfaction via his Truth Social platform. He applauded the court’s denial of what he described as a “Desperate Democrat attempt” to remove him from the ballot, highlighting the failure of similar efforts nationwide, except in Colorado.
This legal back-and-forth underscores the complexities surrounding the interpretation of constitutional clauses in electoral matters and the varying stances taken by state courts across different jurisdictions.
