The legal basis for Trump’s exclusion from the US primaries in Colorado and Maine is clear. But everything else is unclear: who is actually allowed to decide what and according to which procedure – and what does “participation” mean?
At least that’s what everyone in the US agrees on: history is being made these days because, for the first time ever, the 14th Amendment has been used to remove a candidate from a ballot.
A court has ruled in Colorado, and the responsible minister in Maine has now ruled. However, this difference is minor, commented lawyer David Becker from the Center for Election Innovation and Research on the radio station NPR.
“The Secretary of the Interior argues in a very similar way to the Supreme Court in Colorado,” explains Becker: “After voters in Maine sued against Trump’s candidacy, she was obliged to make a decision. And came to the conclusion that Trump was actually involved in an insurrection and that’s why not allowed to run!”
It’s about participation
Section Three of the 14th Amendment – enacted immediately after the Civil War in the mid-19th century – states that no person who has participated in a revolt against the American government may run for public office. This is exactly what the debate has now become bogged down in, the term “engaged”.
Shenna Bellows, Maine’s Secretary of the Interior, interprets the Constitution this way: “I’ve looked very closely at the 14th Amendment. It clearly speaks of ‘participation’ in an insurrection.” The prerequisite is not that someone has been convicted of revolting, Bellows told CNN. “The storming of the Capitol was also an attack on the rule of law. It was an insurrection, and Trump was involved!”
Politically sensitive decision
Bellows’ decision was preceded by an extensive hearing with many parties involved. The minister is aware of how politically sensitive it is if, as a Democrat, she excludes a Republican candidate from the election.
Their approach has also been praised by the opposition in Maine. Republican Thomas Saviello, a former senator in Maine, said on CNN: “She was very thoughtful, listened to everyone in a wonderful hearing.”
Who can decide and according to what procedure?
But concerns remain, in both political camps: Who has the authority to decide whether someone has participated in an insurrection according to the constitution? The states individually, like now – and sometimes the government and sometimes a court? Or is Congress in Washington responsible for uniform regulations across the country?
The process is also unclear: How do you determine whether someone has tried to overthrow the US government? There is also agreement across the political spectrum on this question: Since it concerns an interpretation of the Constitution, it is the Supreme Constitutional Court of the USA, the Supreme Court in Washington.
“We can talk our heads off when interpreting the Constitution; there are good arguments on both sides,” says Adam Kinzinger, former Republican congressman and Trump opponent on CNN, “but final clarification can only come from the highest court!”
Sebastian Hesse, ARD Washington, tagesschau, December 29, 2023 5:10 p.m