In a much-anticipated decision, the Michigan Supreme Court has dismissed an attempt to bar former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot, diverging from the recent Colorado Supreme Court verdict.
The challenge, rooted in the US Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban” and Trump’s alleged role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, marks a pivotal development leading up to the 2024 primaries.
While the Colorado Supreme Court had initially removed Trump from its primary ballot due to his connection to the riot, the decision is currently on hold pending an appeal. The conflicting rulings between Michigan and Colorado introduce a potential trajectory toward the US Supreme Court, casting a shadow over Trump’s political future.
Unlike the Colorado case, the Michigan lawsuit never progressed to trial, being dismissed early in the legal process on procedural grounds. An intermediate appeals court upheld the decision to dismiss, citing that state law doesn’t grant election officials the authority to assess the eligibility of presidential primary candidates. The court also deemed the issue a political question unsuitable for judicial resolution.
The Michigan Court of Claims judge, who initially heard the case, argued against empowering election officials to evaluate the eligibility of presidential candidates under state law. This perspective was echoed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, stating that Trump’s qualification is irrelevant to his placement on the specific ballot for the upcoming presidential primary election.
In contrast to the Colorado courts, the Michigan courts did not delve into the question of whether the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection or if Trump actively participated in such activities. The Michigan Supreme Court’s recent ruling, released without disclosing the vote count or specific judge attribution, underscores the procedural basis of rejection.
Justice Elizabeth Welch of the Michigan Supreme Court highlighted the dissimilarity between Michigan and Colorado laws, emphasizing the absence of a comparable provision in the Michigan Election Law that mandates presidential candidates to affirm their legal qualifications. This comparison draws attention to the procedural nuances shaping the disparate outcomes.
The 14th Amendment, featuring a clause barring individuals engaged in insurrection from holding future public office, did not play a decisive role in the Michigan case. While historically used to disqualify former Confederates, its application to presidential candidacy remains ambiguous due to the lack of explicit mention.
Filed in September by Free Speech For People, an advocacy organization, on behalf of voters, the Michigan lawsuit faced its share of challenges. In contrast, the Colorado lawsuit, initiated by a separate liberal-leaning group, adds complexity to the evolving legal landscape surrounding Trump’s potential candidacy in 2024.