Democracy Trumps All
The United States Supreme Court decided on Mar. 4, in what may become a landmark ruling, to keep former president and Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump, on the state primary ballot in Colorado (SCOTUSblog). To get to the Supreme Court, the case has moved from the Denver District Court, which was against Trump’s removal, and the Colorado Supreme Court, which supported it (Oyez). The case was part of a much wider effort to disqualify Trump, with a pending ban in Maine and another that had just gone into effect in Illinois (The New York Times). Despite this, the Supreme Court’s shrewd decision to keep Trump on the state ballots will thankfully preserve the sanctity of American democracy (The Washington Post).
The case in question, Trump v. Anderson, focused on section 3, or the insurrection clause, of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It essentially states that no government officer, who has taken an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, can hold a position if they engage in an insurrection. The Colorado Supreme Court therefore ruled that Trump would be removed from the state primary ballot, since Trump was an “officer of the U.S.” who engaged in an “insurrection.” The Colorado Supreme Court court referred to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, during which Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building in an attempt to stop the certifying of election results by Congress, as they believed the election was manipulated. The U.S. Supreme Court throughout the deciding of the case, however, remained doubtful about Trump’s ineligibility (SCOTUSblog).
Firstly, the insurrection clause has rarely been used in any rulings, with the established precedent for future proceedings being decided by former circuit judge Salmon Chase in 1869 (AP). In the case, Chase sided with a former Confederate veteran turned judge in a related case, avoiding legal turmoil since many government officials and current officers of the U.S. were former Confederates. Had Chase sided with the defendant, these officers would have had to have been dismissed and all their actions on behalf of the government nullified (Tennessee Bar Association). Chase also believed that the insurrection clause does not automatically take effect. Instead, Congress must be the agent to decide one’s eligibility, as explained by its text. In other words, assuming that Trump was ineligible to run, states regardless would not have the authority to ban Trump, as legislation by Congress would have to be passed first.
“Upholding the rule of law, upholding the Constitution and protecting American democracy supersedes any potential consequences that might result from a court case,” senior Devin Lai said. “One cannot decide a court case based on public opinion. One must decide [a ruling] based on legal facts.”
Secondly, ruling in favor of the lower court’s decision would have harmed the Constitution further. States would have unilaterally banned Trump from their primary ballots, simultaneously creating a chaotic checkerboard of the U.S. map and a mockery of fair election practices. The ruling would not only have robbed an estimated 44% of Americans’ chance to elect Trump, their preferred presidential candidate, based on the latest polls by YouGov, but also hopelessly manipulate the election to favor Biden. Without Trump, unity in the Republican party would have shattered, as supporters could have split the vote between many candidates, even ones who may have reemerged after previously suspending their campaign. Nikki Haley, the only other Republican candidate that has not dropped out yet, recently lost the Nevada Republican primary, managing to win only 31% of the votes, demonstrating the lack of a strong alternative Republican candidate. This lack of a Republican leader, coupled with the fact that sitting presidents have typically had a higher chance of being elected, may have led to an easy second term win for Biden (Newsweek). However, the Supreme Court’s decision has given a fighting chance for the GOP.
“Biden would [have been] the clear winner with former president Trump not opposing him and [Biden not having any] strong challengers like Nikki Haley either,” junior Graham Dollard said. “Biden would [have been] reelected just because [he is the current president].”
Had the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump’s removal, the future may have held a different reality, in which the insurrection clause could be abused in which the Supreme Court’s ruling would be to the point that any politician or their supporters who engage in a so-called “insurrection” could be barred from office (AP). The unanimous decision by the Court still avoided confronting the question of insurrection, as demonstrating that he did engage in an insurrection would still prove controversial (The Washington Post). While he did not storm the Capitol himself, pro-removal lawyers argued that he told his supporters to, or suggested to, at the very least.
“[To remove Trump from the ballot, the Supreme Court would have had] to prove that he did lead an insurrection, which is arguable,” sophomore Adam Lu said. “I do think he [played a role] in people storming the Capitol building. But did [Trump] specifically tell [his supporters] to invade the Capitol building? If not, it was just his supporters acting on their own.”Regardless of Trump’s involvement or not, the impact of this case on the presidential election is undeniable. Judges will now be unable to avoid the political fallout from their ruling. Despite the widespread mistrust of Americans in government institutions (Pew Research Center), the Supreme Court in its decision demonstrated its concern in the declining health of American democracy and its wise judgment in keeping Trump on the ballot.
