Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon has forecasted a pivotal role for the U.S. Supreme Court in determining former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on state ballots.
Following a significant ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court to exclude Trump from the state’s ballot, Simon anticipates a uniform decision across the nation.
He stated in a December 23 interview with MSNBC, “He will either be on the ballot everywhere or nowhere. And the US Supreme Court is going to make sure of that.”
Complexities in Supreme Court Deliberation
Simon acknowledged the complexities faced by the U.S. Supreme Court in handling this issue.
He elaborated, “There are multiple off-ramps for them, for example, to decide the case without deciding the ultimate issue, which is did Donald Trump engage in or help in insurrection.”
The Secretary of State suggested that the Court could resolve the matter without directly addressing Trump’s alleged involvement in the insurrection.
States in Anticipation of Supreme Court’s Decision
With many states in a “wait and see” mode, Simon referred to the ongoing scenario as “the canary in the coal mine.” He mentioned that states are keenly observing the developments and anticipating the Supreme Court’s stance.
This uncertainty has led to administrative challenges and anxiety, especially in Colorado, where the decision on Trump’s presence on the ballot remains unresolved.
Colorado’s Decision and National Implications
The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to bar Trump from state ballots, based on the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause, has set a precedent that could influence other states.
This decision is on hold until January 4, pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s review. If the federal court intervenes, Trump could appear on Colorado’s primary ballot; otherwise, he may be excluded.
National Efforts to Ban Trump from Ballots
Efforts to remove Trump from ballots are not confined to Colorado. In Minnesota, a lawsuit by Free Speech for People sought to exclude him from the primary ballot but was dismissed.
Similar legal challenges in Arizona and New Hampshire have also failed, with other cases ongoing in different states.
California’s Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis has urged the exploration of legal options to block Trump’s ballot inclusion, citing the importance of upholding constitutional and democratic values.
Political Reactions and Legal Perspectives
The decision in Colorado has sparked a variety of reactions. While Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) criticized it as “election interference,” constitutional attorney KrisAnne Hall argued that the Colorado Supreme Court lacked a legal basis for its decision, as Trump has not been legally convicted of insurrection.
Hall stressed the need for concrete evidence to enforce such disqualifications under the 14th Amendment.
In summary, the debate over Trump’s ballot eligibility is intensifying, with various states and legal experts weighing in. The U.S. Supreme Court’s potential involvement could lead to a definitive and uniform resolution to this contentious issue.