A version of this story appeared in the On Background newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive On Background delivered directly to your inbox each Friday.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that former President Donald Trump’s name can stay on the 2024 Republican primary ballot, joining six other states in rejecting liberal attempts to keep him out of the running.
Colorado’s highest court ruled last week that Mr. Trump should be removed from the state ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court finds such splits attractive.
Colorado’s court said Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to Mr. Trump because of his efforts on Jan. 6, 2021, to contest the certification of the 2020 election. Section 3 prohibits anyone who has engaged in an insurrection from holding office.
“Colorado remains an outlier among state courts,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. “Even on that court, three democratically appointed justices refused to sign off on the opinion. The Michigan ruling joins a growing list of courts that have rejected the disqualification challenges.”
Though Mr. Trump is facing several indictments, he has not been charged or convicted of leading his supporters to an insurrection at the Capitol.
SEE ALSO: Colorado GOP asks Supreme Court to overturn Trump’s ban from primary ballot
Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law, said the Michigan ruling was narrow and used different legal reasoning than the Colorado case, but it showed that “other courts are hesitant to boot Trump from the ballot.”
In a 6-1 decision, the Michigan justices said they wouldn’t take up the dispute on appeal “because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court.”
Justice Elizabeth M. Welch, a Democrat, dissented. She reasoned that the question is of high importance and the Michigan Supreme Court should have issued a decision on the merits. She noted that the Colorado ruling was different because of its legal requirement that candidates attest to being qualified for office.
Lower courts in Michigan ruled that the political parties, not the state, should decide which candidates to put on the ballot. They reasoned that the issue of keeping Mr. Trump off the general election ballot was not ripe for review.
Mr. Trump celebrated the Michigan victory on Truth Social, saying the state’s highest court “strongly and rightfully denied the Desperate Democrat attempt to take the leading Candidate in the 2024 Presidential Election, me, off the ballot.
“This pathetic gambit to rig the Election has failed all across the Country, including in States that have historically leaned heavily toward the Democrats.”
His legal team requested Wednesday that Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows recuse herself from deciding the issue. Attorneys said she had shown bias against Mr. Trump in three social media posts in which she called him an “insurrectionist” and claimed he deserved to be impeached.
“The secretary is a completely biased Democrat partisan and a Biden supporter who is incapable of making a fair decision and allowing the people of Maine the right to vote for the candidate of their choosing,” their statement said. “Any attempt to remove President Trump’s name from the ballot is blatant election interference.”
The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed a case last month, saying it couldn’t prevent the state Republican Party from putting Mr. Trump’s name on its ballot. It left the general election issue for a later date and noted that advocates can renew their challenge.
Despite challenges, several other states — including Rhode Island, West Virginia, Florida and Arizona — have also moved to keep Mr. Trump on the ballot. Mr. Trump is on the ballot for the Jan. 23 primary in New Hampshire despite claims he is unqualified.
Mr. Trump’s legal team is expected to appeal the Colorado decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and legal experts say the justices will likely take up the matter.
“I hope that the Supreme Court will show the same clarity as virtually all courts but one by hoping they will rule unanimously so that the court as an institution can speak as one voice,” Mr. Turley said.
“There are few instances in history where speaking with one voice was this important. The court has an opportunity to show the public that it can overcome its own ideological divisions by supporting basic democratic principles.”
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.