Trump's eligibility for the ballot is being challenged under the 14th Amendment. Here are the notable cases.
Washington — Decisions in Maine and Colorado finding that former President Donald Trump is disqualified from holding public office have rested on a 155-year-old constitutional provision that was seldom used in modern times, but has now been invoked in escalating legal challenges from across the country targeting Trump's eligibility to hold the presidency again.
The efforts aimed at Trump's ability to appear on ballots under the Constitution's so-called insurrection clause, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, began just months after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. That's when the liberal advocacy group Free Speech for People sent letters to the top election officials in all 50 states urging them to bar the former president from the ballot as a candidate for the White House in 2024.
Since then, legal challenges to Trump's eligibility under the measure have been brought in federal and state courts in more than two dozen states — 26 cases were filed by a little-known Republican presidential candidate named John Anthony Castro. Most cases brought by Castro have been dismissed, either voluntarily or by the courts. In 12 states, there are challenges pending, according to Lawfare, a national security website that is tracking the Section 3 cases.
But in Colorado, a case brought by a group of voters became the first victory in the effort against Trump, when the state Supreme Court found he is disqualified from holding office again.
In a handful of other states, secretaries of state have said they cannot unilaterally remove Trump from the ballot. But Maine's secretary of state became the first to do so Thursday night, when she issued a decision finding that Trump is not qualified to hold the presidency because of his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6 attack and should be removed from the primary ballot.
The Colorado and Maine challenges have been the only ones to succeed in declaring Trump ineligible under Section 3, but whether Trump is eligible for the ballot is now a question for the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are set to hear arguments in the appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision Feb. 8.
Here are the other states where noteworthy efforts have been underway to keep Trump off their primary ballots:
California
Shortly after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is disqualified from holding the presidency under Section 3, California's lieutenant governor asked the secretary of state to explore "every legal option" to remove Trump from the state's primary ballot.
"California must stand on the right side of history," Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis wrote to Secretary of State Shirley Weber in a Dec. 20 letter. "California is obligated to determine if Trump is ineligible for the California ballot for the same reasons described in Anderson (the Colorado case). The Colorado decision can be the basis for a similar decision here in our state. The constitution is clear: you must be 35 years old and not be an insurrectionist."
In response, Weber told Kounalakis in a letter last week that there are "complex legal issues surrounding this matter," and said any decision on whether to list Trump on the primary ballot must "be grounded firmly in the laws and processes in place in California and our Constitution." Both Kounalakis and Weber are Democrats.
Trump's name will appear on the state's primary ballot, as Weber released on Thursday night a certified list of presidential candidates for California's March 5 primary that included the former president.
Colorado
In a landmark decision on Dec. 19, the Colorado Supreme Court found that Trump is disqualified from holding public office again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The divided 4-3 court ruled against Trump on all of the key legal issues it weighed, including that Section 3 covers the presidency and those who swore the presidential oath, that the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol constituted an insurrection, and that Trump "engaged in" insurrection.
The state Supreme Court's majority ordered the secretary of state to exclude his name from the presidential primary ballot, but its decision will remain on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in the case.
The Colorado Supreme Court, composed of seven justices appointed by Democratic governors, was the first to remove Trump from a presidential primary ballot, and its decision marked the first time a presidential candidate has been deemed ineligible for the White House under Section 3.
Illinois
Five Illinois voters filed an objection to Trump's candidacy with the state Board of Elections on Jan. 4, arguing he is constitutionally disqualified from holding public office under Section 3.
The challenge was brought by Free Speech for People on behalf of the voters. They requested a hearing on their petition, a determination that Trump's nomination papers are "legally and factually insufficient," and a decision that the former president's name will not be printed on the primary or general election ballots.
Illinois' primary is scheduled for March 19.
The voters argued that Trump's nomination papers are not valid because he falsely attested in a statement of candidacy that he is qualified for the presidency.
"Persons who are disqualified by Section 3 are thus ineligible to hold the presidency, just like those who fail to meet the age, residency, or natural-born citizenship requirements" of the Constitution, they said in their objection.
On Jan. 30, the eight-member board unanimously voted to keep Trump's name on the ballot, finding that the question of whether Trump is disqualified from the presidency under Section 3 is one for the courts to answer, not the elections board.
Maine
Maine law requires challenges to a primary nomination to be filed with the secretary of state, who then holds a public hearing where the challengers must make their case as to why the primary nomination petition should be invalidated.
Secretary of State Shenna Bellows received three challenges to Trump's primary nomination petition, two of which argued that the former president doesn't meet the qualifications for the presidency and is ineligible to hold public office under Section 3.
Bellows, a Democrat, held a hearing on the bids to remove Trump's name from the primary ballot on Dec. 15 and issued her decision Thursday, finding that the former president is disqualified from holding office again because of his actions surrounding the Jan. 6 riot.
"I am mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment," Bellows wrote in her 34-page decision. "I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection."
Trump appealed to the state superior court, which paused Bellows' decision excluding Trump from Maine's GOP primary ballot in a Jan. 17 order. The judge also sent the matter back to Bellows and ordered her to issue a new ruling once the Supreme Court decides the Colorado case.
Bellows appealed the decision to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which declined to step in.
Massachusetts
Two Democrats, one Republican and two unaffiliated voters filed a challenge to Trump's candidacy with the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission on Jan. 4, objecting to the former president appearing on the state's GOP presidential primary ballot.
"Trump may not appear on the presidential primary or general election ballots because, after taking the oath of office to support the Constitution, he engaged in rebellion and insurrection against the Constitution of the United States and gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the same and is therefore disqualified from the presidency (and any other public office) under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment," the voters, represented by Free Speech for People, said in their objection.
The group said state law gives the commission the authority and "obligation" to determine the constitutional eligibility of a presidential candidate, and it urged the panel to render a decision about whether Trump can be listed on the ballot before Jan. 29.
Among the voters who filed the objection are former Boston Mayor Kim Janey, a Democrat, and law professors from Boston College and Harvard.
But on Jan. 22, the commission dismissed the challenge to Trump's eligibility for the Massachusetts primary ballot, finding it did not have jurisdiction over the matter. The voters have appealed the decision to Massachusetts' top court, arguing it is "critical" for it to decide whether Trump can appear on the ballot.
Michigan
The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to review a state Court of Appeals decision that allowed Trump to remain on the state's presidential primary ballot.
The state's high court said in a brief, unsigned order that it is "not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court." There was no vote count included in the order.
The challenge to Trump's candidacy in Michigan was brought by four voters on behalf of the liberal advocacy group Free Speech for People, which is behind similar cases in Oregon and Minnesota. The group of voters argued that Trump cannot hold office because of his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6 attack.
A Michigan Court of Claims judge dismissed the case on technical grounds, finding in part that it involved a political question that cannot be decided by the courts and that the political parties determine their presidential candidates for the primary. A three-judge Court of Appeals panel upheld the lower court's ruling and said the political parties and individual candidates determine who to list on the primary ballot. All three judges on the panel were appointed by former Republican Gov. Rick Snyder.
The appeals court's decision, though, does not block voters from renewing a challenge to Trump's candidacy for the general election ballot if he wins the Republican presidential nomination.
Minnesota
Minnesota's Supreme Court tossed out a case brought by eight voters in the state who sought to have Trump's name kept off the primary ballot. The high court said that while the Minnesota secretary of state and other election officials administer the election, the primary is an "internal party election to serve internal party purposes."
"There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office," the Minnesota Supreme Court found.
The court, though, said the voters could renew their challenge for the general election.
New Hampshire
Trump's name will be listed on the primary ballot in New Hampshire after the state's top election official, Secretary of State David Scanlan, said in September that there is no legal basis for excluding the former president.
"There is no mention in New Hampshire state statute that a candidate in a new presidential primary can be disqualified using the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution referencing insurrection or rebellion," Scanlan said during a news conference. "Similarly, there is nothing in the 14th Amendment that suggests that exercising the provisions of that amendment should take place during the delegate selection process held by the different states."
Scanlan, a Republican, said that the language of state election law "is not discretionary," and any candidate who pays a $1,000 filing fee and signs a declaration of candidacy swearing that they meet age, citizenship and residency requirements will have their name listed on ballots.
The secretary of state had asked New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella in August to advise on the meaning of Section 3 and its potential applicability to the 2024 election cycle. Formella, a Republican, issued his guidance in mid-September, saying state law doesn't give the secretary of state discretion to withhold a primary candidate's name from the ballot "on the grounds that the candidate may be disqualified under Section 3 when a candidate has not been convicted or otherwise adjudicated guilty of conduct that would disqualify" them under the provision.
Oregon
Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade said in late November that she would not remove Trump from the ballot for the Republican presidential primary because state law does not give her the authority to determine a candidate's qualifications.
The announcement from Griffin-Valade, who was appointed by Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek earlier this year, came after Oregon's solicitor general, Benjamin Gutman, determined that Oregon law doesn't charge the secretary of state with determining whether a primary candidate will be qualified to serve as president if elected. Section 3, Gutman wrote in a letter to Griffin-Valade, "does not prevent placing a candidate on the presidential primary ballot."
Gutman, who serves in a Democratic-led administration, stressed that his guidance is limited to the secretary's responsibility as to the primary ballot and said the question of Trump's eligibility may arise again with respect to the general election if he receives the Republican presidential nomination.
Griffin-Valade, too, noted that her decision not to exclude Trump from the ballot applies only to the primary and not the November general election.
Still, five voters in Oregon asked the state Supreme Court earlier this month to order Griffin-Valade to disqualify Trump from both the primary and general election ballots, arguing he is constitutionally ineligible for the presidency.
Other states
Cases in 12 states arguing Trump is not eligible remain pending. Those states are: Alaska, California, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin, according to Lawfare's database.
