So, in an attempt to make sure I understand this situation as thoroughly as possible, I read the ruling as issued by Maine’s Secretary of State, Shenna Bellow.
Here is the legal justification for the process:
Under Section 443 of Title 21-A, the Secretary of State is responsible for preparing ballots for a presidential primary election. The Secretary must “determine if a petition meets the requirements of,” as relevant here, Section 336 of Title 21-A, “subject to challenge and appeal undersection 337.” 21-A MRS. § 443.
You can go directly to section 337 of the Maine code here.
Also,
As a general matter, states have inherent authority over their ballots. Consistent with state authority to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections under Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, and to manage the selection process for presidential electors, see US. Const. art. I, § 1 (“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors …. “); McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892 (“(The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States.”), “the States have evolved comprehensive .. . election codes regulating… .. [the] selection and qualification of candidates.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974).
[…many more citations…]
It is that authority that the Maine Legislature has delegated to me.
[…]
The State’s authority, and that delegated by the Legislature, require me to limit access 2 to the primary ballot to qualified candidates
As such, just like in Colorado, the proper procedure was followed under the law, and due process was afforded to candidate Trump. This counters my own ill-informed notion, which I think I expressed in the comments to other posts, that the ME process was bureaucratic fiat–it clearly was not and was fully in keeping with Maine’s laws and the broader constitutional role afforded to states in these processes.
I would note that eligibility to be on the ballot is a procedural matter and this process fits.
The problem isn’t the process. The problem is what Trump did while it office. It is not at all unreasonable for Maine’s Secretary of State to have interpreted section 3 of the 14th Amendment as she did. And it is within the rights of candidate Trump to appeal the ruling. And yes, it makes sense to adjudicate the matter before SCOTUS.
I will add, that the more I read and think about this, the more I think that Trump should be disqualified under section 3 and that his constitutional remedy is a vote in Congress, as per the plain text of the 14th Amendment (but I also continue to think that SCOTUS will rule in Trump’s favor).
For what it is worth, the Maine SoS used the January 6th Committee report as the main basis for determining Trump’s insurrectionist behavior.
In reading the ruling, I am struck that Trump’s objections are not that he did not engage in insurrection, but various due process and bias arguments. Indeed, the ruling notes “The parties do not meaningfully dispute the events of January 6, 2021” and yet, Trump’s best defense here is that he didn’t engage in insurrection. And, as Secretary Bellow notes in her ruling, that should be a defense Trump is prepared to make, given that this is hardly the first time that charge has been leveled. Clearly under section 3 if he didn’t engage in insurrection, he is qualified to run. So he should mount that defense if he can.
The only other defense entered was one based on First Amendment free speech rights, which is answered in the ruling as follows:
The events of January 6, 2021 notwithstanding, Mr. Trump also claims that he cannot be disqualified from the presidency for his conduct because his public statements and speeches are protected by the First Amendment. But Mr. Trump cites no precedent—and I am unaware of ‘any—that permits the First Amendment to override a qualification for public office. Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a criminal penalty, as in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right 10 Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 468-69 (2007), nor is it a punishment, cf. Dec. 15, 2023 Hearing 5:24:08-5:24:30 (Magliocea) (describing historical understanding of Section Three). It is simply a qualification for office.‘
Additionally, because I conclude that Mr. Trump intended to incite lawless action, his speech is unprotected by the First Amendment.
The ruling does a very good job of outlining the events of January 6th, and details why they were an insurrection and Trump’s role in those events.
It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS addresses the reasoning therein.
