Will Silicon Valley lawmaker's plan to toss Trump off ballot work … – San José Spotlight
Get San José Spotlight headlines delivered to your inbox.
A local state assemblyman wants to remove former President Donald Trump from the March primary ballot, but the law may not be on his side.
Trump’s eligibility to be on the ballot hinges on the outcome of his federal indictment over the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The first trial date in Trump’s federal indictment is March 4, but the jury selection and other procedural steps will likely push it out farther. That’s according to Larry Gerston, a political science professor emeritus at San Jose State University.
“It’ll be a miracle if that trial is held before summer,” he told San José Spotlight.
Assemblymember Evan Low and eight other California legislators sent a letter to Attorney General Rob Bonta over the weekend calling for him to seek a court opinion on whether Trump is eligible to hold public office.
A number of states are questioning Trump’s eligibility for the primary ballot, citing section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Section 3 states that if someone takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and then supports “insurrection or rebellion against the same,” they cannot hold public office.
Gerston said barring someone from running under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment requires being found legally guilty of having engaged in an insurrection.
If a state did try to remove Trump from the primary ballot before his Jan. 6 case had a verdict, Gerston said he would likely sue. Without a court decision on the federal case, any calls to remove Trump from primary ballots are based on accusations, Gerston added.
According to Eddie Kirby, Low’s spokesperson, the law’s precedent shows a conviction may not be needed to disqualify Trump from the ballot, citing eight past cases.
“No conviction is required for removal from the ballot legally or historically,” Kirby told San José Spotlight. “The point of the letter is to speed up the court’s decision making on whether or not Donald Trump is disqualified because of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
The secretaries of state have looked to the courts for answers, as the final decision on eligibility hinges on Trump’s existing federal case. Lawsuits have been filed in Colorado and Minnesota seeking information on his eligibility ahead of the primaries, based on the 14th Amendment argument outlined by University of Chicago law professor William Baude and University of St. Thomas School of Law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen.
Low represents District 26, which includes Cupertino, a portion of San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, and the unincorporated areas of Burbank and Fruitdale. He thinks California’s attorney general is in a “unique position” to seek court opinion on the topic of Trump’s eligibility.
“Whatever the courts decide, it is important that they do so quickly to avoid further political strife,” Low told San José Spotlight.
But Gerston doesn’t think legislators have a shot at removing him without a verdict.
“The best these folks can hope for … is to wait to see what the judiciary says,” Gerston said. “I understand people are desperate to try to shape the primary system in such a way to deny former President Trump, but you know those are the rules and you’ve gotta go by the rules.”
Contact B. Sakura Cannestra at [email protected] or @SakuCannestra on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Yes, I will donate
Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.
Please note I am not a Trump supporter but this just doesn’t seem right. I wish these people would concentrate in fixing our public schools like raising test scores, hiring more teachers, fixing our mental health system, lowering our property taxes and reducing retail theft. So many issues that need to be addressed.
Gerston is expressing way too much confidence in an opinion that is far from settled law. His matter of fact claim that disqualification “requires being found legally guilty of having engaged in an insurrection” and that “those are the rules” are completely unfounded.
Thousands of ex-Confederates were disqualified from public office after the Civil War without ever having been convicted of a crime. There’s even precedent for January 6th participants being barred from public office without a direct conviction related to insurrection. A New Mexico County Commissioner was removed from office by the Courts based on his participation in January 6th, despite his only conviction being for trespassing.
It’s fine for Gerston to state his opinion, but it’s inappropriate for him to be presenting that opinion as fact or settled law when that couldn’t be farther from the truth.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
You must be logged in to post a comment.
*we hate spam as much as you do
*we hate spam as much as you do
*we hate spam as much as you do
San José residents deserve a trusted source for unbiased, independent political news. And we’re here to provide it.
San José Spotlight is the city’s first nonprofit, community-supported digital news organization. We’re changing the face of journalism by providing an innovative model for delivering reliable, truthful news to the nation’s 10th largest city. We’re partnering with you – the readers – to make it happen. This is your newsroom.
408.206.5327
[email protected]
Submit a News Tip
San José Spotlight is a project of the San José News Bureau, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization | Tax ID: 82-5355128. | All donations are tax-deductible