On Wednesday, Donald Trump succeeded in his fight against challenges to his eligibility to run for the White House again. Michigan’s top court refused to hear a case aiming to disqualify him from the state’s presidential primary ballot.
The Michigan Supreme Court stated it would not hear an appeal from four voters in the state striving to block the former president from the Feb. 27 Republican primary for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The voters claimed that Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican nomination, could not function as president under a provision in the U.S. Constitution that blocks people from holding office if they encountered an “insurrection or rebellion” after pledging an oath to the United States.
“We are not persuaded that this Court should review the questions presented,” the justices expressed in a brief order.
Trump praised the Michigan Supreme Court’s order on Wednesday. Trump, in a post on his Truth Social site, stated that the court “strongly and rightfully denied” what he called a “desperate Democrat attempt” to remove him from the ballot in Michigan.
The Michigan order contrasts with a judgment by Colorado’s top court last week to disqualify Trump under the same constitutional condition, known as Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Trump has pledged to appeal the Colorado verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Trump has been indicted in both a federal case and in Georgia for his role in attempting to topple the 2020 election, but he has not been charged with insurrection related to the Jan. 6 attack.
A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court could decide the issue of Trump’s eligibility nationwide to contest in the 2024 presidential race.
A lawyer for the voters cast the order as procedural, stating that the court permitted them to revive their case for the November 2024 general election.
“The Court’s decision is disappointing, but we will continue, at a later stage, to seek to uphold this critical constitutional provision designed to protect our republic,” the attorney, Mark Brewer, stated in a statement. “The ruling conflicts with longstanding US Supreme Court precedent that makes clear that when political parties use the election machinery of the state to select, via the primary process, their candidates for the general election, they must comply with all constitutional requirements in that process.”
However, The Michigan Supreme Court’s order does not stop the voters from challenging Trump’s eligibility. Further, to appear on the general election ballot if he succeeds the Republican nomination. In the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court may have settled the issue.
A member of the state supreme court differed with the decision of Court. Justice Elizabeth Welch, a Democrat, stated the court should have listened to the request and formally confirmed the lower court’s decision.
In Michigan, presidential candidates are selected uniquely. The secretary of state lists candidates “generally advocated by the national news media to be potential presidential candidates.” Political parties may also submit additional candidates; others can petition to get added.
The lower court wrote that that structure did not provide room for the secretary of state to determine a candidate’s qualifications.
“The Secretary of State’s role in presidential primary elections is chiefly that of an administrator,” the appeals court reported. “In particular, when it comes to who is or is not placed on the primary ballot, the statutory scheme leaves nothing to the Secretary of State’s discretion.”
Unlike in Colorado, the Michigan Supreme Court did not decide the fate of whether Trump was involved in an insurrection. The justices supported lower court rulings, concluding that courts should not determine the matter for the primary election.
Unlike 14th Amendment challenges brought in some other states, Michigan is believed to be one of the critical swings states likely to determine the result of the general election.
