2024 presidential eligibility of Donald Trump
Donald Trump's eligibility to run in the 2024 U.S. presidential election was the subject of dispute due to his involvement in the January 6 United States Capitol attack, through the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's "insurrection clause", which disqualifies insurrectionists against the United States from holding office if they have previously taken an oath to support the constitution. Courts or officials in three states—Colorado, Maine, and Illinois—ruled that Trump was barred from presidential ballots. However, the Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson (2024) reversed the ruling in Colorado on the basis that states could not enforce the insurrection clause against federal elected officials.[1]
In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court in Anderson v. Griswold ruled that Trump had engaged in insurrection and was ineligible to hold the office of President, and ordered that he be removed from the state's primary election ballots as a result.[2] Later that same month, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows also ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection and was therefore ineligible to be on the state's primary election ballot. An Illinois judge ruled Trump was ineligible for ballot access in the state in February 2024.[3] All three states had their decisions unanimously reversed by the United States Supreme Court.[4] Previously, the Minnesota Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals both ruled that presidential eligibility cannot be applied by their state courts to primary elections, but did not rule on the issues for a general election. By January 2024, formal challenges to Trump's eligibility had been filed in at least 34 states.[5][6]
On January 5, 2024, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari for Trump's appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling in Anderson v. Griswold[7] and heard oral arguments on February 8.[8] On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a ruling unanimously reversing the Colorado Supreme Court decision, ruling that states had no authority to remove Trump from their ballots.[9]
Several commentators have also argued for disqualification because of democratic backsliding, as well as the paradox of tolerance, arguing that voters should not be able to elect Donald Trump, whom they see as a threat to the republic.[10] Other commentators argue that removing Trump from the ballot constitutes democratic backsliding.[11][12]
There has been widespread doxing, swatting, bomb scares, and other violent threats made against politicians who have attempted to remove Trump from the ballot. On December 29, 2023, Secretary Bellows was swatted.[13] The incidents are part of a broader spate of swatting attacks.[14]
Reactions from other candidates[edit]
Democratic presidential candidates Marianne Williamson and Dean Phillips criticized the Colorado Supreme Court decision to remove another candidate from the ballot.[684] The other Republican candidates at the time – Chris Christie, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, and Vivek Ramaswamy – all criticized the decision with Christie stating "I do not believe Donald Trump should be prevented from being president of the United States, by any court; I think he should be prevented from being the president of the United States by the voters of this country", and Haley stating "the last thing we want is judges telling us who can and can't be on the ballot". Ramaswamy stated he would withdraw from the Colorado primary if the court decision stood.[685]
Violent incidents[edit]
There have been widespread doxxing, swatting, and violent threats made against politicians who have attempted to remove Trump from the ballot. On December 29, 2023, Bellows was swatted.[13] The incidents are part of the broader 2023 swatting of American politicians.[13]
In the early hours of January 2, 2024, a man broke into the Colorado Supreme Court, opened fire, then surrendered to police. No one was injured, but the building was damaged. Though multiple threats had been made against the four Colorado justices who ruled to disqualify Trump, the Colorado State Patrol suggested that this man may have acted alone. The man's motivations were not immediately publicized.[686]