Sn surprise, on the eve of the March 5 primaries, the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated the decision of its counterpart in Colorado who had declared Donald Trump ineligible in this state, due to his role in the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. This decision was made based on section 3 of January 14e amendment to the Federal Constitution which prohibits holding public office for anyone who has participated in acts of “rebellion” or insurrection after taking an oath to defend the Constitution.
The nine judges of the high court attempted to thwart the trap of partisan intervention in the middle of an electoral campaign: a collective, unanimous decision, based on a solid legal basis, based on the principles of federalism, that is to say relations between the federated States and the Union. As the hearing of February 8 foreshadowed, the legal qualification of the events of January 6, 2021 and the degree of involvement of the former president were therefore not addressed.
The Court thus ruled that, if a State of the Union could implement the disqualification provided for by section 3 against a holder or a candidate for a function of this State, it was otherwise acting as a federal function. Adopted in 1868, in the wake of the Civil War (1861-1865), on 14e amendment was in fact part of a movement to strengthen federal power over the federated states. Allowing each State to determine, according to its own criteria, whether or not a candidate for a national office is eligible would lead, according to the Court, to a “patchwork” electoral, or even chaos.
The concern is real, and we can credit the high court with a solid legal-political argument, which has the merit of clarifying the electoral debate. It could nevertheless be objected that the States are masters of the national electoral process within their respective jurisdictions. Under the ruling, a candidate could now be disqualified for insufficient sponsorship requirements, but not for participation in an insurrection, which is paradoxical to say the least.
Moreover, if it had been confirmed, Colorado’s decision would have quickly been emulated in a large number of states and the predicted chaos would thus have been avoided. Finally, the Supreme Court would have retained in any event the ability to censor improbable decisions of ineligibility that it deemed unjustified in the future.
You have 46.3% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.