A legal expert and former federal prosecutor says he believes that decisions by Colorado’s Supreme Court and Maine’s secretary of state to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot in each jurisdiction over an allegation he has yet to be charged with or convicted of will have a boomerang effect on the electorate.
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows removed Trump late last week after Colorado’s highest court acted earlier in the week, citing the “insurrection” clause of the 14th Amendment. But CNN’s Elie Honig said he doesn’t see either of them holding up under scrutiny at the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The 14th Amendment Section 3 says, in plain text, that if you shall have engaged in insurrection, you can’t be in office. She takes that to mean that if she determines that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, he can’t be on the Maine primary ballot. Is it that simple?” CNN anchor John Berman asked Honig during a Friday show segment.
“No, it’s not that simple. So, clearly, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says engage in insurrection, you’re out. We all have that. The complicated part and where we are going to see this play out in the courts is who gets to decide and by what process,” Honig said.
“Now, it’s important to note — and in the ruling — the Secretary of State we just heard from says she’s basically following the same legal reasoning as the Colorado Supreme Court did last week. And she says in her ruling if this gets struck down in Colorado, we’re out of luck, too. So, she is basing it on the same legal argument,” he said.
“Let me sort of lay out the arguments — both sides. And by the way, it’s worth saying we’re all theorizing here. We’re in legally unknown territory. The argument against is, first of all, the 14th Amendment Section 5 says Congress has the authority to pass laws to implement this. They did. They passed the criminal law. And the argument is that means Congress, not the states.
CNN's legal expert Elie Honig destroys Maine secretary of state for decision to boot Trump off '24 ballot. pic.twitter.com/Nrs5Rfza9e
— USA Features Media (@UsaFeatures) December 29, 2023
“But perhaps — and this is the argument that the Maine Secretary of State and Colorado made — the states can do it, too. If that’s true, then Section 2 — question two is were the processes — were these hearings fair? Did they comport with due process?” the legal analyst said.
“And I think there’s a question there with regard to what Maine did because if you look at the hearing, and she details this in the ruling, they heard from one fact witness, a law professor. She based her ruling on a lot of documents, but also YouTube clips, news reports, things that would never pass the bar in normal court. She’s not a lawyer, by the way. It’s a smartly written decision, clearly consulted with lawyers, but this is an unelected. She is chosen by the state legislature… elected by the legislature, but not democratically elected. Not a knock at her. That’s just the way it’s set up in Maine,” he said.
“And this hearing, look, it doesn’t have to be a criminal trial. We don’t have to have all the protections. But I think the argument you’ll hear from opponents is, one, not up to the states to do this. This is why we have all different decisions from all different states. And two, the procedures were not up to snuff,” he said.
Later in the segment, he noted as well: “I do think the Supreme Court is going to take this case. I think tonight’s ruling makes it even more likely.”
