Oregon – While California said Donald Trump’s name would remain on the ballot in that state, Maine recently decided to follow the state of Colorado’s previous decision to bar the former president from its primary election ballot. Trump and his legal team are doing everything in their power to overturn the decisions in these two states, which are clear fiascos for Trump. The ex-president’s legal team has now started the legal process in Oregon to appear on the state’s election ballots.
Former President Donald Trump has become directly involved in a legal challenge brought to the Oregon Supreme Court. This challenge, initiated by the group “Free Speech For People,” disputes an earlier ruling by Oregon’s Secretary of State regarding Trump’s placement on the 2024 Oregon election ballots.
Oregon Secretary of State decided not to remove Trump from the Oregon election ballot
The issue at hand for the court follows a decision made by Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade, who was appointed by a Democrat, on November 30. She announced her decision not to remove Trump from Oregon’s May 2024 primary election ballot. Her reasoning was that under Oregon law, she doesn’t have the power to decide who can run in a presidential primary, and she specifically did not address the general election in her statement. The decision to keep Trump on the Oregon primary ballot follows normal procedures, which can only be changed by a legal ruling from a court.
Free Speech for People, an organization focused on election integrity and the rights of voters, has pointed to the 14th Amendment in their argument against Donald Trump’s involvement in elections. They refer to Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 incident at the U.S. Capitol. Their argument is that Trump, having promised to uphold the U.S. Constitution, either participated in or supported actions against it, or helped the nation’s enemies. Because of this, they believe he should not be allowed to hold public office.
California allowed Trump to run for president
This argument is based on a lesser-known part of the U.S. Constitution, established after the Civil War. Similar reasoning was used by the Colorado Supreme Court and Maine’s Secretary of State, who both decided that Trump should not be on the presidential primary ballots in their states. On the other hand, the official in charge of elections in California decided recently that Trump can be on their state’s ballot.
Several national political organizations are joining the legal dispute over Trump’s ballot status. The conservative group Landmark Legal Foundation, known for participating in similar cases in other states, tried to submit a brief supporting Trump in Oregon. However, the Supreme Court rejected their request on Friday due to a technical mistake.
On the other side, the Constitutional Accountability Center, a law firm with a history of filing similar legal actions against Trump, succeeded in getting the court’s permission to submit a brief opposing Trump.
Oregon attorneys Dan Meek and Jason Kafoury, hired by Free Speech for People, are leading the charge to remove Trump from Oregon’s ballot. They argue that the case for removing him is stronger for the general election than the primary. They reason that the 14th Amendment, which they are using in their argument, doesn’t really apply to primaries since these don’t directly elect the president. Winning in Oregon doesn’t guarantee a nomination. They acknowledge that the journey from the 14th Amendment to actually holding office involves several stages. Meek admits that Oregon officials don’t have the authority to determine who can run in presidential primaries.
Trump’s legal team started the procedure in Oregon
Trump and his legal team submitted a detailed 162-page brief on Friday, arguing based on Oregon’s legal history to support his inclusion on the ballot. They argue that Trump was not involved in the Capitol riot and maintain that the events of January 6, though involving serious crimes and violence by others, do not constitute an insurrection as defined by the 14th Amendment.
This argument might be challenged in light of the findings of last year’s bipartisan U.S. House of Representatives committee. The committee reported that Trump did not accept the legitimate results of the 2020 election and did not respond to multiple requests over several hours to ask his aggressive supporters to leave the Capitol.
Legal experts believe that while these disputes are currently happening at the state level, they are likely to escalate and eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
