Election law expert on states blocking Trump from ballot – PBS NewsHour
Give by 12/31, so we can continue to deliver intelligent, in-depth, trustworthy journalism.
Geoff Bennett Geoff Bennett
Ian Couzens Ian Couzens
Leila Jackson, Student Reporting Lab Leila Jackson, Student Reporting Lab
Leave your feedback
Maine’s top election official ruled that Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot, citing his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The secretary of state said she made her decision after receiving three challenges from voters. Geoff Bennett discussed more with Rick Hasen, an election law expert and Director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project At UCLA’s Law School.
Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors.
Geoff Bennett:
Maine’s top election official ruled last night that Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible to appear on that state’s primary ballot next year, citing his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
Shenna Bellows, Maine’s secretary of state and a Democrat, said she made her decision after receiving three challenges from Maine voters, including former Republican state senators, seeking to bar Trump from the ballot.
Shenna Bellows (D), Maine Secretary of State: It’s a very detailed decision. We lay out why under Maine law the secretary of state has the authority, indeed, the obligation. I’m duty-bound to make this determination.
We also — I, rather, laid out that the record demonstrates that, in fact, the events on January 6, 2021, which were unprecedented and tragic, were an insurrection in the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Geoff Bennett:
Rick Hasen joins us now. He’s an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA’s Law School.
Rick, thank you for being with us.
So, Maine joins Colorado now in barring Donald Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. The process in Maine, where the secretary of state determines eligibility, is very different from the process in Colorado, where that was decided by that state Supreme Court.
But through what reasoning and on what judgment do both decisions rest?
Rick Hasen, UCLA School of Law: Well, you’re right that the decision in Maine started administratively, but it’s clear it’s going to go to the courts and will ultimately be resolved by state courts and maybe the U.S. Supreme Court.
The issue in both cases is the same. It’s whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars from future office those officeholders who had pledged an oath to support the Constitution, but then engaged in insurrection or supported the U.S.’ enemies, they would be disqualified from serving.
And so there’s a bunch of legal questions. Does this apply to the president, the office of the president? There’s also the question of whether Trump engaged in insurrection. That’s more of a factual question. The secretary of state in Maine pretty much followed the reasoning of the Colorado Supreme Court in the earlier decision in finding that Trump is disqualified from serving in office.
It’s something that involves complex, novel questions from a part of the Constitution that really was put in place after the Civil War and hasn’t been used in recent times.
Geoff Bennett:
What about Donald Trump’s right to due process? Does it matter that he’s not been charged with, tried for, or convicted of insurrection?
Rick Hasen:
It’s a great point.
I think there are — you can kind of put the questions about this disqualification into three buckets. There are legal questions about, for example, whether the presidency is covered by this provision. There are factual questions. Did Trump engage in insurrection?
And your question goes to a third point, the procedural questions. This is what upset some of the dissenters in the Colorado decision. Whose decision is it to make? On what basis of evidence? In Colorado, it was a trial court that made the determination without a jury. In Maine, it was the administrator, the chief election officer of the state, that made the determination.
Is that enough process? I think that’s one of the questions if the Supreme Court takes up this case that they’re going to have to resolve.
Geoff Bennett:
Maine’s Republican Party is vowing to appeal this ruling. And Maine’s GOP chairman says he disputes the idea that a single political elite — that’s the phrase that he is referring to the secretary of state — can disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Maine voters with one decision.
What do you make of that argument? It’s less a legal argument and one that speaks to voters’ faith in the system.
Rick Hasen:
Right.
I do think that there’s a difference between the legal question and the political question. Legally, there’s a part of the Constitution that says that certain people are disqualified if they have participated in an insurrection. That was adopted through a democratic process. And that’s part of our set of rules, just like our rules that say that if you’re under 35 years old, you can’t serve as president, right?
So these are rules that were democratically adopted. The application of those rules to the facts could be complex. And having that decision-maker be a secretary of state, rather than a jury or some other body, is maybe problematic.
But I think the broader point is that, politically, the question is whether or not this country is going to tolerate having one of the leading candidates for president be taken off the ballot, whether that’s by an administrator or by a court. We’re going to see different decisions across the country.
Unless and until we get some resolution from the U.S. Supreme Court, we’re going to continue to have these fights in state after state. In some places, Trump might appear on the ballot. In other places, he might not.
Geoff Bennett:
And assuming the court takes this up, I hear you say that that is the question that they will weigh, not necessarily did Donald Trump engage in an insurrection, but what authority, what entity has the right to make that determination and then bar him from the ballot?
Rick Hasen:
I think there are all kinds of questions that have to be raised. There are purely legal questions about the application to the presidency. There are these factual questions and then there are these procedural questions.
Donald Trump really only has to prevail on any one of them in order for the court, the U.S. Supreme Court, to conclude that he remains on the ballot. The challengers have to prevail on all of them. And that’s — could be tough, especially because we don’t have a modern track record of how to apply this part of the Constitution.
And so it’s really anybody’s guess what the court’s going to do when it addresses these myriad problems. I think one thing that the chief justice of the United States, John Roberts, is going to want to do is not have a decision, if the court takes the case, that divides on party lines, which would further inflame partisan passions in the United States.
Geoff Bennett:
Rick Hassan, always appreciate your insights. Thanks for speaking with us.
Rick Hasen:
Thank you.
Watch the Full Episode
Dec 29
Dec 29
By Nicholas Riccardi, David Sharp, Associated Press
Dec 28
By Nicholas Riccardi, David Sharp, Associated Press
Dec 28
By Geoff Bennett, Saher Khan
Geoff Bennett Geoff Bennett
Geoff Bennett serves as co-anchor of PBS NewsHour. He also serves as an NBC News and MSNBC political contributor.
Ian Couzens Ian Couzens
Leila Jackson, Student Reporting Lab Leila Jackson, Student Reporting Lab
Support Provided By: Learn more
Support PBS NewsHour:
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
© 1996 – 2023 NewsHour Productions LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Sections
About
Stay Connected
Subscribe to ‘Here’s the Deal,’ our politics newsletter
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Learn more about Friends of the NewsHour.
Support for NewsHour Provided By