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.
Minnesota’s Supreme Court cast a skeptical eye Thursday on an attempt to kick former President Donald Trump off the state’s ballots next year over his behavior during the 2020 election, citing worries about having the judiciary weigh in on such a politically charged matter.
Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, a Democratic appointee, said she was open to holding an evidentiary hearing on whether the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol qualified as an insurrection under the Constitution for the purposes of disqualifying Mr. Trump. But she was leery of the court ruling on such a contentious matter.
She said if every state took up this issue, there could be different outcomes, which she said would be “just chaos.”
“So should we do it even if we could do it and we can do it?” she said.
The case is one of a series of challenges to Mr. Trump that cite the Constitution’s prohibition on anyone who led an insurrection or rebellion holding public office. The provision was written into the 14th Amendment with the Civil War in mind, but the former president’s opponents say it should apply to his attempts to stop certification of President Biden’s victory.
Free Speech for People, a nonpartisan nonprofit group that focuses on challenging big money in politics, brought the Minnesota challenge on behalf of eight voters seeking to remove Mr. Trump from the state’s ballot.
The group also has a petition pending in Michigan.
“Donald Trump engaged in rebellion and insurrection against the Constitution of the United States in a desperate attempt to remain in office,” Ron Fein, the group’s lawyer, told the justices.
The lawsuit names Secretary of State Steve Simon as the defendant, pointing to a state statute that allows any individual to file a petition with the state’s highest court to correct an error in the printing of a ballot.
Nathan Hartshorn, the attorney representing the secretary of state, told the justices they did not take a position on the merits of the case, but planned to comply with whatever order the justices issue.
He said election officials need time to make any changes consistent with the court’s directive and asked for a ruling by Jan. 5, ahead of the March primary.
Nicholas Nelson, an attorney representing Mr. Trump, said the case presents a political question, and according to the political question doctrine — which leaves certain questions to be resolved by the political branches of government — the courts should not rule on the issue.
“This does not rise to the scale or scope of an insurrection,” he said.
The political question argument appealed to Justice G. Barry Anderson, a Republican appointee, who said the former president’s opponents have a “serious problem” in overcoming that obstacle.
He said there isn’t any precedent on this issue, since most cases on disqualifying candidates turn on issues of age or citizenship.
“There really isn’t any similar set of facts,” Justice Anderson said.
The state Supreme Court is composed of seven justices, but two have recused themselves from hearing the case: Justices Margaret H. Chutich and Karl C. Procaccini. The court did not note during Thursday’s hearing why the two are not taking part in the dispute.
Mr. Trump’s campaign called it a “frivolous lawsuit.”
“Using lawfare to attack President Trump’s ballot access is Election Interference, and only happening because President Trump continues to poll so well against Crooked Joe Biden in traditionally blue states,” said Steven Cheung, Mr. Trump’s campaign spokesperson.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.