Minn. justices say ballot eligibility is likely up to Congress
Skeptical if states have authority to bar Trump in ’24
ST. PAUL — Minnesota Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Thursday that states have the authority to block former president Donald Trump from the ballot, with some suggesting that Congress is best positioned to decide whether his role in the 2021 US Capitol attack should prevent him from running.
Justices sharply questioned an attorney representing Minnesota voters who had sued to keep Trump, the early frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, off the state ballot under the rarely used “insurrection” clause of the US Constitution. Citing Congress’ role in certifying presidential electors and its ability to impeach, several justices said it seemed that questions of eligibility should be settled there.
“And those all seem to suggest there is a fundamental role for Congress to play and not the states because of that,” Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson said. “It’s that interrelation that I think is troubling, that suggests that this is a national matter for Congress to decide.”
The oral arguments before the state Supreme Court were unfolding during an unprecedented week, as courts in two states were debating questions that even the nation’s highest court has never settled — the meaning of the insurrection clause in the Civil War-era 14th Amendment and whether states are even allowed to decide the matter.
At stake is whether Trump will be allowed on the ballot in states where lawsuits are challenging his eligibility.
The Minnesota lawsuit and another in Colorado, where a similar hearing is playing out, are among several filed around the country to bar Trump from state ballots in 2024 over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, which was intended to halt Congress’ certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 win. The Colorado and Minnesota cases are furthest along, putting one or both on an expected path to the US Supreme Court.
Minnesota’s went directly to the state Supreme Court, where five of the seven justices heard the arguments on Thursday after two recused themselves. The justices consistently questioned whether it was appropriate for states to determine a candidate’s eligibility to run for president.
Hudson also said she was concerned about the possibility “for just chaos” if multiple states decided the issue differently.
She said even if the court had the authority to keep Trump off the ballot, “should we, is the question that concerns me the most.”
The former president is dominating the Republican presidential primary as voting in the first caucus and primary states rapidly approaches.
An attorney representing Trump, Nicholas Nelson, said states’ roles in determining candidates’ eligibility for president was limited to what he called “basic processing requirements,” such as determining whether they meet the age requirement.
The question of whether Trump should be barred from the ballot under the insurrection section of the 14th Amendment should not even be before the court, he said, calling it a political question.
Trump’s team asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit.
The central argument in the Minnesota and Colorado cases is the same — that Section Three of the 14th Amendment bars from office anyone who previously swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it.
In the Minnesota case, the plaintiffs are asking the state’s highest court to declare that Trump is disqualified and direct the secretary of state to keep him off the ballot for the state’s March 5 primary.
They want the court to order an evidentiary hearing, which would mean further proceedings and delay a final resolution, something Trump’s legal team opposes.