Michigan SC Rejects Attempt to Exclude Donald Trump from 2024 Primary Ballot

The Michigan Supreme Court has dismissed an attempt to bar former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot based on the “insurrectionist ban” in the US Constitution, according to sources. This decision stands in contrast to the recent ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, which excluded Trump from its primary ballot due to his involvement in the January 6 Capitol riot. The Colorado decision is currently on hold pending an appeal.

With these conflicting rulings, potential appeals to the US Supreme Court gain added significance, particularly as the nation approaches the commencement of the 2024 primaries, as reported.

In contrast to Colorado, Michigan courts dismissed the case on procedural grounds without delving into the questions of insurrection and Trump’s role in it. The Michigan Supreme Court’s order did not disclose a vote count after comparing Michigan law to Colorado’s election code.

According to sources, one Michigan justice provided insight on the distinction between Michigan and Colorado. Justice Elizabeth Welch reportedly stated on Wednesday that the challengers in Michigan “have identified no analogous provision in the Michigan Election Law that requires someone seeking the office of President of the United States to attest to their legal qualification to hold the office.” This comparison was made in relation to Colorado’s election code, as per reports.

While the lower-court decisions in Michigan left the door open to potential 14th Amendment challenges if Trump secures the Republican nomination, the former President, via Truth Social, criticized attempts to prevent his inclusion on the ballot, cautioning against a “rigged and stolen” 2024 election.

Legal challenges persist in Michigan, with Ron Fein of Free Speech For People expressing disappointment over the decision but emphasizing its non-binding nature beyond Michigan. Mark Brewer, another attorney for the challengers, stated that they would continue their efforts in Michigan, saying, “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 14th Amendment challenge against Trump was initiated by Free Speech For People in September, aiming to apply the “insurrectionist ban.” The amendment’s vague wording has only been applied twice since 1919, and the Michigan lawsuit formed part of a broader legal strategy pursued by the group.