In what may be considered the most contentious electoral decision since Bush v. Gore, the US Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that disqualified former president Donald Trump from the primary ballot. The judgment was based on the premise that Congress, and not individual states, hold the constitutional power to disqualify candidates. Despite the decision was made unanimously, it doesn’t restore the court’s respect, neither validates its constitutionality amid various ethical issues. As can be reviewed here.
The Supreme Court’s ruling suggests a perception that unanimity, and thereby institutional legitimacy, outweighs the accurate and original interpretation of the Disqualification Clause. This pertains to the important legal queries whether the Disqualification Clause applies to the presidency, whether Jan. 6 was an insurrection, and whether the Disqualification Clause needs affirmative congressional action to be implemented.
The Fourteenth Amendment created pivotal changes to our constitutional framework by developing it into a medium that can be leveraged by individuals to assert equal rights. It established national eligibility standards for federal office elections, preventing anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office.
The court’s decision is fundamentally based on two misconceptions. The first one mistakenly speculates that the Disqualification Clause isn’t self-executing, contending that statutory legislation is necessary to disqualify a candidate for federal office, and that states have no constitutional function in this process. This is not accurate.
Congressman John Bingham, the main drafter of the Fourteenth Amendment, dismissed statutory laws that would replicate the Disqualification Clause. The reason for this being that the text, in unison with our federalism, would prohibit ineligible candidates from assuming office. After the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification, many candidates for the Virginia legislature were barred from taking office because they fought for the Confederacy. Their exclusion was self-implemented as no affirmative act of Congress was required.
If the Disqualification Clause isn’t self-enforcing, then other Fourteenth Amendment’s provisions that provide citizenship rights and ensure equal protection under the law would also necessitate congressional laws to take effect, but they don’t. The Constitution rendered the formerly enslaved people citizens of the US after its ratification. Congress also didn’t need to act to enforce desegregated public schools under the Equal Protection Clause— the court did.
The second false premise upon which the court’s decision stands turns election federalism upside down by ruling that states don’t have broad discretion to qualitatively and procedurally qualify voters and candidates; only Congress has this power. According to the Disqualification Clause, states can establish eligibility parameters for state and federal office candidates—this principle is widely recognized in American constitutional law.
Neither does the court’s decision prevents states from passing laws to disqualify candidates who engage in similar conduct to that of Trump in 2020 and 2021, nor does it hinder Congress from rejecting electoral votes cast for an ineligible candidate. Section 3 does not require any legislation or judicial ruling to be enforced.
The warning of Justice Thurgood Marshall, “Power, not reason, is the new currency of this Court’s decision-making.” is pronounced as the court overlooks the Constitution’s text, public original interpretation, historical context, and federal structure by deferring Trump’s disqualification to Congress in what may be the most critical election in US history.
The case is Trump v. Anderson, U.S., 23-719, Decided 3/4/24.