On January 6, 2021, politics in the United States fundamentally changed. In the waning days of his presidency and upon the verification of the 2020 election, Donald J. Trump employed divisive and anti-democratic rhetoric, inciting protests that swept through the streets of Washington D.C. Most notably, demonstrators converged on the Halls of Congress, engaging in riotous behavior to voice their grievances and denounce what they perceived as a ‘stolen election’.
The issue of this piece is not to determine Trump’s guilt or innocence, nor to establish whether the election of 2020 was stolen, but rather to evaluate the subsequent Supreme Court ruling made in the context of this issue. This dispute arose when several states sought to bar Trump from appearing on the ballot due to his alleged involvement in the events of January 6th, 2021. On March 4, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam, or unsigned, opinion that effectively overturned the Colorado Supreme Court decision that banned Trump from being on the ballot. At the heart of the case was the interpretation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding public office.
“No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … as an officer of the United States, … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
The Court’s ruling established three main things:
1) President Trump’s eligibility cannot be deferred to post election. If Congress is going to make a law that keeps Trump off of the ballot, they have to do so before the election.
2) States cannot make decisions that impact federal offices, but they reserve the right to make such decisions for their respective states.
3) Unless Congress passes a law (in advance) that explicitly prohibits President Trump from serving another term, he can be on the ballot and can serve another term. This last part would have been left up for question had the court declined to rule on the second aspect of the issue.
The ruling in Trump v. Andersen 2024 has profound implications for the balance of power between the branches of government and the integrity of the electoral process. By affirming that President Trump’s eligibility cannot be deferred to post-election and clarifying the limitations of state authority in making decisions impacting federal offices, the Court upholds principles of pre-election clarity and consistency. The Court’s position in such a politically charged issue reinforces checks and balances, and more importantly sets us up for a showdown between executive and legislative branches. Is Congress going to show up and keep a former President off the ballot for allegedly committing insurrection?
Considering the current political landscape, with Republicans controlling the House and Democrats holding a slim majority buoyed by Independents, it appears unlikely that Congress would move to prevent Trump from appearing on the ballot. While the Court has set the stage for a potential showdown, the actualization of such a scenario remains uncertain and frankly unlikely. Nevertheless, this ruling, while primarily addressing candidate eligibility and congressional authority, potentially carries broader implications.
The most intriguing aspect to me is the invocation of federalist principles, which may mark the initial steps toward a potential transition to nationalized elections. If the highest Court in the land has determined that states lack the authority to regulate who appears on the ballots for national elections, it raises the question of whether the Court might extend its oversight to other aspects of states’ administration of federal elections in the future. While the ruling itself does not explicitly suggest such a trajectory, it evokes elements of cooperative federalism—an ironic twist, considering that conservative justices, often proponents of states’ rights and dual federalism, rendered the decision.
These potential consequences, though likely unintended, are nonetheless compelling and carry potential implications for the future of federal elections. They prompt consideration of how the balance between federal and state authority in election governance might evolve, shaping the landscape of American democracy in unforeseen ways.