Attorney General Knudsen joins coalition defending Trump’s right to be on 2024 ballot
HELENA – Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen joined a coalition of 19 attorneys general in fighting a state-by-state effort to disenfranchise voters and thwart the democratic process of electing a president by keeping Donald Trump off of ballots, this time in Colorado. If President Trump is left off the ballot in one state, it will have implications for voters in Montana and across the country. Such cases have already been tossed from state courts around the country.
The attorneys general filed an amicus brief Wednesday urging the Colorado Supreme Court to dismiss a case challenging President Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on the state’s 2024 ballot. The Constitution gives Congress – not courts – the authority to decide who is eligible to run for federal office under the Fourteenth Amendment.
“When one State excludes a presidential candidate, votes for that candidate in other States lose value. And when many States exclude the candidate, his or her votes in other States may have no value at all,” the attorneys general wrote in the brief. “Electoral chaos would ensue if a presidential candidate, whose eligibility is governed by a single set of constitutional requirements, is eligible to appear on some States’ ballots but not others. Recognizing as much, the district court rejected petitioners’ attempt to balkanize eligibility for President, holding that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to federal officers, not Presidents.”
Earlier this month, a Colorado district court judge rejected petitioners’ attempt to bar Trump from the 2024 ballot in Colorado, but also found that he “engaged in insurrection.” Soon after, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear the case when both parties appealed. The petitioners claim that Trump should be blocked from the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment because he “engaged in insurrection.” However, the Fourteenth Amendment entrusts Insurrection Clause questions to Congress – not state officials or state courts.
If judicial systems from across the country are allowed to determine who is constitutionally eligible for president, chaos would ensue as it could leave questions in voters’ minds as to what candidates might have a reduced chance or no chance at the nomination.
“For elections to be fair, voters need a single, certain answer as to whether someone is ineligible for President under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment—an answer that only Congress can give,” the attorneys general wrote.
Additionally, voters have the first opportunity to decide whether Trump is legally qualified to be reelected as President. If they find he is and Congress agrees, “then the Constitution does not contemplate a time for the judiciary to second-guess that call. Rather, the Constitution gives Congress the sole and final authority to determine whether the President can continue to serve.”
The district court also reinforced the fact that courts are ill-suited to enforce the Insurrection Clause. The district court’s view of “insurrection” has, as far as the States know, never been applied anywhere else and only begs more questions.
Attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming also joined the brief led by Indiana and West Virginia.
Click here to read the brief.
###