www.washingtonpost.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
23.51.146.8
Public Scan
URL:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/04/trump-supreme-court-ballot-voters/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=emai...
Submission: On March 05 via api from BE — Scanned from DE
Submission: On March 05 via api from BE — Scanned from DE
Form analysis 1 forms found in the DOM
<form class="w-100 left" id="registration-form" data-qa="regwall-registration-form-container">
<div>
<div class="wpds-c-QqrcX wpds-c-QqrcX-iPJLV-css">
<div class="wpds-c-iQOSPq"><span role="label" id="radix-0" class="wpds-c-hdyOns wpds-c-iJWmNK">Enter email address</span><input id="registration-email-id" type="text" aria-invalid="false" name="registration-email"
data-qa="regwall-registration-form-email-input" data-private="true" class="wpds-c-djFMBQ wpds-c-djFMBQ-iPJLV-css" value="" aria-labelledby="radix-0"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="dn">
<div class="db mt-xs mb-xs "><span role="label" id="radix-1" class="wpds-c-hdyOns"><span class="db font-xxxs gray-darker pt-xxs pb-xxs gray-dark" style="padding-top: 1px;"><span>By selecting "Start reading," you agree to The Washington Post's
<a target="_blank" style="color:inherit;" class="underline" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/information/2022/01/01/terms-of-service/">Terms of Service</a> and
<a target="_blank" style="color:inherit;" class="underline" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/privacy-policy/">Privacy Policy</a>.</span></span></span>
<div class="db gray-dark relative flex pt-xxs pb-xxs items-start gray-darker"><span role="label" id="radix-2" class="wpds-c-hdyOns wpds-c-jDXwHV"><button type="button" role="checkbox" aria-checked="false" data-state="unchecked" value="on"
id="mcCheckbox" data-testid="mcCheckbox" class="wpds-c-cqTwYl wpds-c-cqTwYl-bnVAXI-size-125 wpds-c-cqTwYl-kFjMjo-cv wpds-c-cqTwYl-ikKWKCv-css" aria-labelledby="radix-2"></button><input type="checkbox" aria-hidden="true" tabindex="-1"
value="on" style="transform: translateX(-100%); position: absolute; pointer-events: none; opacity: 0; margin: 0px; width: 0px; height: 0px;"><span class="wpds-c-bFeFXz"><span class="relative db gray-darker" style="padding-top: 2px;"><span
class="relative db font-xxxs" style="padding-top: 1px;"><span>The Washington Post may use my email address to provide me occasional special offers via email and through other platforms. I can opt out at any
time.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="subs-turnstile-hook" class="center dn"></div><button data-qa="regwall-registration-form-cta-button" type="submit"
class="wpds-c-kSOqLF wpds-c-kSOqLF-hDKJFr-variant-cta wpds-c-kSOqLF-eHdizY-density-default wpds-c-kSOqLF-ejCoEP-icon-left wpds-c-kSOqLF-ikFyhzm-css w-100 mt-sm"><span>Start reading</span></button>
</form>Text Content
Accessibility statementSkip to main content Democracy Dies in Darkness SubscribeSign in Advertisement Close The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness PoliticsBiden administration The Fix The 202s Polling Democracy in America Election 2024 PoliticsBiden administration The Fix The 202s Polling Democracy in America Election 2024 Democracy in America SUPREME COURT RULING DARKENS CRITICS’ HOPES FOR A JUDICIAL CURB ON TRUMP THE UNANIMOUS RULING THAT THE FORMER PRESIDENT SHOULD STAY ON THE BALLOT WAS THE LATEST INDICATION THAT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS UNLIKELY TO UPEND THE RACE BEFORE VOTERS HAVE THEIR SAY By Sarah Ellison and Toluse Olorunnipa March 4, 2024 at 6:11 p.m. EST Demonstrators for and against Donald Trump protest outside the United States Supreme Court on Feb. 8, 2024, in Washington, DC. (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post) Listen 7 min Share Comment on this storyComment7571 Add to your saved stories Save When 2024 dawned, the presidential race appeared destined to play out as much in the courts as on the campaign trail. Former president Donald Trump faced a pair of federal indictments. Two state cases brought the total criminal charges against him to 91. Challenges to his ballot eligibility proliferated, with the Supreme Court being asked to weigh in on whether Trump could even be a candidate. Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.ArrowRight Two months later, the federal cases have been slowed to the point where verdicts before November are considered unlikely. One of the state cases has been derailed by a sex scandal. The other is due to go to trial later this month, but is widely seen as the least significant of the bunch. Story continues below advertisement And the challenge to Trump’s ballot eligibility was settled decisively Monday, with the Supreme Court unanimously ruling that states lack the power to disqualify him. Advertisement To anyone hoping that Trump’s efforts to overturn the last election would lead the judicial system to meaningfully penalize him before the next one, recent developments have proved sobering. The Supreme Court on March 4 unanimously overruled a Colorado decision that would have kept former president Donald Trump off the ballot in 2024. (Video: Anna Liss-Roy, JM Rieger/The Washington Post, Photo: Scott Muthersbaugh/The Washington Post) “The real takeaway is that the courts aren’t going to save us from ourselves,” said Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, “and that the only surefire way to ensure that an anti-democratic candidate for president doesn’t succeed is to beat him at the ballot box.” Story continues below advertisement While the court had been widely expected to rule in Trump’s favor, the decision came amid a string of setbacks in efforts to hold Trump accountable for his efforts to disrupt the transfer of power after the 2020 vote. Trump is also outpolling President Biden in many head-to-head matchups and continues to dominate the Republican primary, with the chance to put the intra-party contest effectively out of reach on Tuesday as 15 states cast ballots. Advertisement The court’s 9-0 decision overturned a December ruling from Colorado’s Supreme Court, which barred Trump from appearing on the state’s ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Civil War-era provision prohibits those who have taken an oath to the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding office again. The Colorado court cited Trump’s role in the events around the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection as the basis for its decision. Follow Election 2024 Follow Trump is the first former president to have been charged with a crime. He is facing four separate cases, two of which relate to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Subscribe to the Trump Trials, our weekly newsletter update on Donald Trump's four criminal cases All nine justices — the six conservatives plus the three liberals — said an individual state should not be able to ban a candidate from running for federal office. They warned of the consequences of a nationwide patchwork in which candidates were barred in some states but not others. Advertisement Story continues below advertisement “Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos — arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the inauguration,” the court said in an unsigned, 13-page opinion. The push to disqualify Trump under the seldom-used Section 3 had divided constitutional scholars, with some championing the case and others expressing doubts about either the legality or the practical impact of keeping Trump from running — or both. Mark Graber, a University of Maryland constitutional law scholar who last year published a book on the history of the 14th Amendment, said the justices appeared focused on the real-world implications of a ban but that the legal basis of the decision was thin. Story continues below advertisement “The opinion makes sense as a matter of policy,” Graber said. While it might be “a good idea to have a rule that states cannot disqualify federal officers or candidates for federal office,” Graber said, there is nothing in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that “states can disqualify state officers, but not federal officers.” Advertisement J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former U.S. Court of Appeals judge who co-wrote with Laurence H. Tribe a piece for the Atlantic in August that helped to galvanize interest in the 14th Amendment as a means to disqualify Trump, cited the language of the three liberal justices in their concurring opinion, which critiqued elements of the majority’s decision. The liberals agreed with the conservatives that states should be prohibited from kicking candidates off the presidential ballot under Section 3, while disagreeing with the majority specifying Congress’s role in any disqualification. The standard, Luttig argued, makes it functionally impossible to disqualify insurrectionists from holding federal office. Story continues below advertisement “The court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment regardless of whether he or she has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,” Luttig said. “The decision is stunning in its overreach.” The impact of Monday’s decision was immediate, effectively nullifying efforts in states across the country to ban Trump from running. Within hours of the ruling, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows withdrew her earlier determination that Trump should be barred from the ballot in her state. The Maine primary is Tuesday. Advertisement In comments shortly after the ruling, Trump praised the court’s decision and quickly pivoted to another case “of equal importance” before the court, one reviewing his sweeping claim of immunity from prosecution over actions taken while president. The Supreme Court agreed last week to review Trump’s arguments in that matter, setting oral arguments for late April. The decision was a blow to special counsel Jack Smith’s efforts to move the federal Jan. 6 case quickly to trial, and cast doubt over whether there will be a verdict before the November election. Story continues below advertisement Trump allies cheered the Monday ruling. “The Supreme Court unanimously showed us today that we cannot silence the voice of the American people and stop democracy,” Alina Habba, one of Trump’s attorneys, wrote in a post on X. The court pointedly did not address whether Trump engaged in insurrection. In Colorado, Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) said that while she welcomed the clarity the decision would give millions of Americans preparing to vote, she said she was “disappointed” by the ruling. Advertisement “It means that federal oath-breaking candidates will have a pass to run for office again given the nonfunctioning in Congress,” she said. Norma Anderson, lead plaintiff in the Colorado case against former president Donald Trump, did not agree with the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision on March 4. (Video: The Washington Post) Former Colorado House and Senate majority leader Norma Anderson, a Republican who was a plaintiff in the case, said the court’s ruling “does not change this fact: Donald Trump engaged in insurrection against the United States Constitution.” Story continues below advertisement She added that she now believes that “the court cases against Donald Trump do nothing to hinder him. The thing to do is to get to the ballot box.” The 91-year-old Republican suing to kick Donald Trump off the ballot The sentiment was echoed by Biden’s deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks. In an appearance on MSNBC, he said that, “we don’t really care,” about the Colorado decision. “Our focus since day one of launching this campaign has been to defeat Donald Trump at the ballot box.” Asked about the case in December, Biden said it was “self-evident” that Trump was an insurrectionist — though he stopped short of saying how the court should rule. “Now, whether the 14th Amendment applies, I’ll let the court make that decision,” the president told reporters. “But he certainly supported an insurrection. No question about it. None. Zero.” Advertisement Story continues below advertisement Still, Biden has framed much of his bid for reelection around the idea that he is uniquely positioned to protect the nation’s democracy by defeating Trump and preventing him from returning to the Oval Office. Biden’s aides and allies have described the prospect of a second Trump term as an existential threat to Americans’ fundamental freedoms and sense of security — a message they believe they can deliver more effectively when it becomes clear that neither the courts nor the Republican primary will keep the former president off the ballot in November. Biden and his allies say they are eager for another one-on-one matchup between the two men that will again offer voters a stark choice. “I’m the only one who has ever beat him,” Biden told the New Yorker in an interview published Monday. “And I’ll beat him again.” Share 7571 Comments Loading... Subscribe to comment and get the full experience. Choose your plan → Advertisement Advertisement live updatespoliticsChevronRight 5:42 PM ANALYSIS: 6 SUPER TUESDAY STATES TO WATCH 5:29 PMNew crypto super PACs face Super Tuesday test 5:00 PMA race to watch: North Carolina’s 1st Congressional District 4:48 PMAnalysis: Does Nikki Haley drop out after Tuesday? TOP STORIES Politics Reporting and analysis from the Hill and the White House Analysis|The institutions of government aren’t going to protect democracy Live updates: Supreme Court decides Trump remains on ballot ahead of Super Tuesday Analysis|4 takeaways from the Supreme Court’s ruling on Trump and 14th Amendment Refresh Try a different topic Sign in or create a free account to save your preferences Advertisement Advertisement Company About The Post Newsroom Policies & Standards Diversity & Inclusion Careers Media & Community Relations WP Creative Group Accessibility Statement Sitemap Get The Post Become a Subscriber Gift Subscriptions Mobile & Apps Newsletters & Alerts Washington Post Live Reprints & Permissions Post Store Books & E-Books Print Archives (Subscribers Only) Today’s Paper Public Notices Coupons Contact Us Contact the Newsroom Contact Customer Care Contact the Opinions Team Advertise Licensing & Syndication Request a Correction Send a News Tip Report a Vulnerability Terms of Use Digital Products Terms of Sale Print Products Terms of Sale Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Settings Submissions & Discussion Policy RSS Terms of Service Ad Choices washingtonpost.com © 1996-2024 The Washington Post * washingtonpost.com * © 1996-2024 The Washington Post * About The Post * Contact the Newsroom * Contact Customer Care * Request a Correction * Send a News Tip * Report a Vulnerability * Download the Washington Post App * Policies & Standards * Terms of Service * Privacy Policy * Cookie Settings * Print Products Terms of Sale * Digital Products Terms of Sale * Submissions & Discussion Policy * RSS Terms of Service * Ad Choices * Coupons 5.12.2 Already have an account? Sign in -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TWO WAYS TO READ THIS ARTICLE: Create an account or sign in Free * Access this article Enter email address By selecting "Start reading," you agree to The Washington Post's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. The Washington Post may use my email address to provide me occasional special offers via email and through other platforms. I can opt out at any time. Start reading Subscribe €2every 4 weeks * Unlimited access to all articles * Save stories to read later Subscribe WE CARE ABOUT YOUR PRIVACY We and our 46 partners store and/or access information on a device, such as unique IDs in cookies to process personal data. You may accept or manage your choices by clicking below, including your right to object where legitimate interest is used, or at any time in the privacy policy page. These choices will be signaled to our partners and will not affect browsing data. If you click “I accept,” in addition to processing data using cookies and similar technologies for the purposes to the right, you also agree we may process the profile information you provide and your interactions with our surveys and other interactive content for personalized advertising. If you do not accept, we will process cookies and associated data for strictly necessary purposes and process non-cookie data as set forth in our Privacy Policy (consistent with law and, if applicable, other choices you have made). WE AND OUR PARTNERS PROCESS COOKIE DATA TO PROVIDE: Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Create profiles for personalised advertising. Use profiles to select personalised advertising. Create profiles to personalise content. Use profiles to select personalised content. Measure advertising performance. Measure content performance. Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different sources. Develop and improve services. Store and/or access information on a device. Use limited data to select content. Use limited data to select advertising. List of Partners (vendors) I Accept Reject All Show Purposes