According to a court document posted on Wednesday, the Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an effort to eliminate former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. The court's decision was based on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
In contrast to a recent decision made by the Colorado Supreme Court, the ruling in Michigan presents a starkly different outcome. The Colorado Supreme Court disqualified the former president from serving as president and removed him from the Colorado primary ballot. This decision was supported by a majority of 4 out of 7 judges, who argued that the former president's connection to the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach was a determining factor. Some analysts have put forth the suggestion that the ruling could potentially be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is because the individual in question has not been formally charged with either rebellion or insurrection in any jurisdiction.
The Michigan court's brief order states that it has denied an appeal against the former president. The court explains that it is not convinced that the questions presented in the appeal warrant a review by the court. The order from the court seemed to dismiss the appeal based on procedural reasons. However, it did not provide any response or analysis regarding the allegations of President Trump's involvement in a "insurrection" or the potential application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
The order issued by the Michigan Supreme Court lacked a signature and did not include any information regarding the vote count. Among the justices who voiced their opinions on the matter, only one held a dissenting view. This individual was Justice Elizabeth Welch, who had been nominated by the Democratic party.
The ruling pertaining to the 2024 election timeline has the effect of enabling President Trump to be included on the ballot in Michigan, which is considered a crucial battleground state. In recent polls, it has been observed that the former president is currently leading President Joe Biden, who belongs to the Democratic party, in the state of Michigan.
In the dissenting opinion, Judge Welch stated that the primary legal question being considered by the Court is whether the Court of Claims and the Court of Appeals made an error in their decision regarding the Michigan Secretary of State's authority to remove or withhold former President Donald J. Trump's name from the presidential primary ballot in 2024.
The author explains that there is a notable distinction between the election laws of Colorado and Michigan, which is crucial to understanding why the appellants in this case should not receive the relief they are seeking regarding the presidential primary election in Michigan. Additionally, the author suggests that the analysis and application of the political question doctrine by the Court of Claims is unnecessary and should be disregarded, as it is not relevant to the court's conclusions on the primary election and the general election's ripeness. Consequently, the author respectfully dissents based on these reasons.
In contrast to a recent decision made by the Colorado Supreme Court, the ruling in Michigan presents a starkly different outcome. The Colorado Supreme Court disqualified the former president from serving as president and removed him from the Colorado primary ballot. This decision was supported by a majority of 4 out of 7 judges, who argued that the former president's connection to the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach was a determining factor. Some analysts have put forth the suggestion that the ruling could potentially be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is because the individual in question has not been formally charged with either rebellion or insurrection in any jurisdiction.
The Michigan court's brief order states that it has denied an appeal against the former president. The court explains that it is not convinced that the questions presented in the appeal warrant a review by the court. The order from the court seemed to dismiss the appeal based on procedural reasons. However, it did not provide any response or analysis regarding the allegations of President Trump's involvement in a "insurrection" or the potential application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
The order issued by the Michigan Supreme Court lacked a signature and did not include any information regarding the vote count. Among the justices who voiced their opinions on the matter, only one held a dissenting view. This individual was Justice Elizabeth Welch, who had been nominated by the Democratic party.
The ruling pertaining to the 2024 election timeline has the effect of enabling President Trump to be included on the ballot in Michigan, which is considered a crucial battleground state. In recent polls, it has been observed that the former president is currently leading President Joe Biden, who belongs to the Democratic party, in the state of Michigan.
In the dissenting opinion, Judge Welch stated that the primary legal question being considered by the Court is whether the Court of Claims and the Court of Appeals made an error in their decision regarding the Michigan Secretary of State's authority to remove or withhold former President Donald J. Trump's name from the presidential primary ballot in 2024.
The author explains that there is a notable distinction between the election laws of Colorado and Michigan, which is crucial to understanding why the appellants in this case should not receive the relief they are seeking regarding the presidential primary election in Michigan. Additionally, the author suggests that the analysis and application of the political question doctrine by the Court of Claims is unnecessary and should be disregarded, as it is not relevant to the court's conclusions on the primary election and the general election's ripeness. Consequently, the author respectfully dissents based on these reasons.
