Michigan Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Remove Trump from State’s Primary Ballot

In a pivotal decision, the Michigan Supreme Court dismissed an attempt to exclude Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot next year based on his involvement in the 2021 US Capitol riot. The rejection rebuffed efforts by opponents seeking to assess Trump’s eligibility for future office following the events of the Capitol breach.

The court’s ruling, delivered in a succinct statement, outlined their stance, stating they were “not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court” ahead of the crucial February 27 presidential primary in Michigan.

This legal battle represents part of a broader effort in various states to employ the 14th Amendment in restricting Trump’s appearance on primary ballots. The amendment prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding future office, a point of contention raised by those opposing Trump’s candidacy.

Interestingly, the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision contrasts starkly with a recent ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, which excluded Trump from their primary ballot due to his alleged role in inciting the Capitol riot.

• Trump Becomes First Former President with Mug Shot
• I will carryout ‘largest domestic deportation operation in American history’ if elected – Trump
• Oyo State Approves Car Loan for Primary School Teachers as Economic Palliative
• Enugu inaugurates Committee for primary schools, LG retirees benefits
• Concerns Over Judicial Appointments, Shortage of Supreme Court Justices Emerges

The lawsuit in Michigan, filed by Free Speech For People, a pro-democracy advocacy group, faced procedural dismissals in lower courts, a judgment upheld in subsequent appeals. Consequently, the core issue of whether Trump’s actions constituted insurrection remained unaddressed within Michigan’s legal proceedings.

Justice Elizabeth Welch, among the four Democratic-nominated justices in the seven-member panel, acknowledged the Colorado ruling but highlighted distinctions in Michigan’s election law. She emphasized that Michigan’s statutes lack a comparable provision mandating presidential candidates to affirm their legal qualification for office.

“The appellants 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,” Welch articulated in her assessment.

As this legal battle concludes, Trump’s appearance on Michigan’s primary ballot remains unaffected, setting the stage for a continued debate over the interpretation and application of the 14th Amendment in the context of electoral candidacy.