Supreme Court’s dangerous Easter egg lets states define insurrection Ohio betraying trust of those who gifted it unspoiled land
It’s the Easter season, so it’s perhaps appropriate that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential ballot access contains an Easter egg.
Tucked within the high court’s order in Trump v. Anderson is a bold assertion of constitutional authority that has the potential for abuse by those who administer our elections.
The justices rightly rejected Colorado’s attempt to unilaterally deny Donald Trump access to their state’s presidential primary ballot, but the same ruling unanimously affirms that states may take such action toward non-federal candidates.
Here’s the key line: “We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office.”
This means any secretary of state with the duty to grant ballot access can block a state or local candidate alleged to have violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Section 3, of course, bars from public office those who engage in insurrection or provide aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States.
The standard for applying this authority remains somewhat undefined, as it’s never been used prior to the attempts to block former President Trump. You might argue that a mere allegation of wrongdoing doesn’t justify a ballot ban, but that didn’t stop at least one rogue secretary of state.
The Supreme Court put its foot down
While Trump has never been tried or convicted of either insurrection or providing aid and comfort to America’s enemies, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows unilaterally ordered him blocked from the ballot based only on the assertion that the U.S. Constitution “does not tolerate an assault on our foundations of government.”
She made no effort to prove that Trump himself committed such an assault.
Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court put its foot down on these cravenly partisan abuses of authority, but the matter remains unresolved as it relates to non-federal candidates.
Do politically motivated judges or election officers have the authority to block state and local candidates who they believe showed support for the January 6 protests?
A court in New Mexico has already removed one such officeholder and blocked him from the ballot. The Supreme Court’s decision could reinforce these actions, without providing any parameters for how they should be applied by the states.
How far will high court’s ruling be taken?
Let’s play this out in a different setting. Black’s Law Dictionary defines aid and comfort as “encouragement.”
Hamas has been labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. government since 1997 and has declared itself to be an enemy of our country. State Representative Munira Yasin Abdullahi recently voted against a resolution condemning Hamas for committing “heinous and unprecedented attacks against the people of Israel.”
Does her vote provide encouragement to America’s declared enemy?
What about politicians who post pro-palestinian statements or participate in public demonstrations of support? Should I or some future secretary of state deny them access to the ballot for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?
I believe most of my fellow chief election officers exercise great discretion in performing our duties under the law, but that doesn’t mean the law will never be abused.
Each state is now left to its own discretion as to how to define insurrection or aid and comfort, and each will now have to decide whether to adopt a formal process for candidate removal.
Of course, once you create a path, some will want to go down it. Others will say it’s best to leave it alone and argue that Ohio has no statutory process for denying ballot access based on a Section 3 violation.
Either way, we should consider ourselves warned, and our legislators should decide how best to prevent this arcane constitutional provision from future abuse.
Frank Larose is currently serving his second term as Ohio’s 51st secretary of state, presiding over local, state and federal elections as the state’s chief election officer. He is also a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, where he serves with a special forces unit.
Those managing our public lands have a priority problem and it is leading them to drill away trust and betraying natural treasures gifted to us by Ohioans like Margaret Keen.
Last month, the Ohio Oil and Gas Land Management Commission approved leasing nominations for fracking in three state parks and wildlife areas, spanning thousands of acres across our southeastern counties.
The fossil fuel corporations awarded the rights to drill —Texas-based Encino Energy and West Virginiabased Infinity Natural Resources — are preparing to siphon profits out of Ohio and imperil our natural heritage.
Since the commission decided to open our alreadylimited public lands to the oil and gas industry, more and more requests to drill have been submitted.
Trust being broken
Take the example of the 84-acre Keen Wildlife Area. Established in 1996 with land from the estate of Margaret Keen, the preserve is used for hiking, nature study, birdwatching, and hunting, giving Ohioans priceless opportunities to recreate in our natural spaces.
A private citizen entrusted this land to our state under the assumption that it would be preserved for the benefit of the ecosystem and the people who access it.
Only 28 years later, that commitment has been walked back by the opening of this preserve to leasing nominations from the fracking industry.
What is fracking?
It has become clear that fracking is not just an environmental issue. It is also a moral one, and this decision is a grave misuse of Ohio’s public lands.
Fracking is the process of extracting natural gas from under the ground, and emissions from this fossil fuel produce methane, a chemical 80 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.
The fracking process can contaminate drinking water and soil, exposing communities to toxins linked to cancers, endocrine disorders, asthma, and complications in pregnancy. It threatens our air quality. The heavy, loud and ugly machinery used in fracking operations will also disturb wildlife and decrease the natural beauty of our landscapes.
Officials must understand the danger
Our decision-makers now rank the interests of outof-state fossil fuel corporations above Ohioans’ rights to unspoiled natural spaces.
The request to frack in the 18,0011-acre Egypt Valley Wildlife Area in Belmont County is as disappointing as what is planned for Keen.
Conservationist groups banded together to create this preserve. A park composed of land recovering from extensive surface coal-mining, the recent proposition to begin fracking on this preserve adds insult to injury. It hampers decades of efforts to restore critical habitat, reintroduce native plant and animal populations, and provide recreational space.
We protect public lands for practical reasons, like carbon sequestration, habitat restoration, and tourism.
But the intangible things that nature preserves provide us — respite from the troubles of everyday life, connection with the world around us, appreciation of our natural heritage — are just as valuable.
Fracking on our public lands is a bad deal for people and the planet alike. It’s time our decision-makers understand this.
Briones Bedell is a nonprofit fundraiser and communications professional residing in Columbus.