Trump Files Lawsuit to Secure Spot on Michigan Ballot in 2024
President Donald Trump’s legal team has taken preemptive action by filing a lawsuit in the Michigan Court of Claims to protect his candidacy in the state’s 2024 election. This move comes in response to pending lawsuits seeking to disqualify Trump under the Fourteenth Amendment for his alleged involvement in the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.
The focus of this article is on the lawsuit filed by LaBrandt et al. v. Benson on September 29, 2023, as it overlaps with the other anti-Trump suits.
The plaintiffs in this case are four registered voters from Michigan, represented by attorney Mark Brewer and a group of Massachusetts lawyers from Free Speech for People (FSP), a national non-profit political advocacy organization.
The defendant in this lawsuit is Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s Democratic Secretary of State. FSP has also filed a similar lawsuit in Minnesota.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson speaks in Detroit, Michigan, on Aug. 18, 2020. (Rebecca Cook/Reuters)
Court Order Could Disqualify Donald Trump
In their complaint, the plaintiffs request the court to declare President Trump ineligible for public office and to prevent Ms. Benson from including him as a candidate in the upcoming Michigan Republican presidential primary and the general election in 2024.
Michigan law requires the secretary of state to compile and issue a list of presidential candidates recognized by the national news media and place them on the primary ballot by November 10. The plaintiffs argue that legal action is necessary because Ms. Benson claimed she lacks the authority to investigate and determine a candidate’s eligibility based on a Fourteenth Amendment violation.
Political Cover?
Observers speculate that Ms. Benson, a former law school dean, aims to succeed Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer when both are term-limited out of their current positions in 2026.
The plaintiffs make serious allegations against President Trump, accusing him of orchestrating a scheme to overthrow the government and retain power even if he lost the election. They claim that his actions constitute insurrection or rebellion, disqualifying him from holding public office under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, aimed to prevent ex-Confederates from holding office in the reconstructed Union.
The complaint also accuses President Trump of attempting to enlist government officials to illegally overturn the election results.
Not Since Rutherford B. Hayes
In the highly contested presidential election of 1876 between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel Tilden, the Electoral College could not decide the winner due to disputes over electors from four states. Congress established a special Electoral Commission to resolve the issue, ultimately favoring Mr. Hayes in March 1877.
This historical precedent influenced Trump’s strategy on January 6, 2021.
However, in December 2022, Congress passed a bill banning the 1877 procedure.
The complaint alleges that on January 4, 2021, President Trump and his attorney John Eastman met with Vice President Mike Pence and his attorney Greg Jacob to discuss a legal theory that Pence could reject votes or suspend proceedings to allow states to reexamine the results. The U.S. Constitution requires the vice-president, as President of the Senate, to preside over the counting of electoral votes in a joint session of Congress.
The complaint quotes President Trump’s speech at the Save America Rally on January 6, 2021, where he allegedly suggested referring the electoral votes back to the states for reexamination.
Incendiary Rhetoric?
The complaint highlights President Trump’s alleged incitement of violence during the rally. While he did not commit any overt acts of insurrection, his remarks are said to connect him to the criminal conduct of some supporters at the Capitol Building.
President Trump’s speech at the rally included quotes such as:
“We want to go back, and we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there, and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.
“And we’re going to have to fight much harder.
Similar remarks have been made by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who repeatedly stated, “I will fight like hell” to protect the right to obtain an abortion after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
No legal action has been taken against Governor Whitmer for her choice of words.
The complaint does not mention that President Trump requested the deployment of 10,000 National Guardsmen to protect the Capitol, a request that was declined by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser.
However, the complaint does acknowledge several instances where President Trump urged the crowd to remain peaceful during the events of January 6.
President Trump’s legal team, represented by constitutional lawyers David Kallman, Stephen Kallman, and Mark Meuser, argues that he did not engage in insurrection and that the authority to determine a candidate’s eligibility lies with Congress, not state officials or courts.
Attorney David Kallman (Courtesy photo/Kallman Legal Group)
President Trump’s lawyers request the court to declare that Ms. Benson lacks the authority to disqualify him as a presidential candidate and to prevent her from excluding him from the ballot based on Fourteenth Amendment allegations.
A Preemptive Blow
They also ask the court to enjoin Ms. Benson from refusing to include President Trump on the ballot, as Michigan law and federal constitutional law do not grant her the authority to make such determinations.
President Trump’s legal team had previously sought confirmation from Ms. Benson regarding his inclusion on the ballot, but received no response.
The Michigan Office of the Secretary of State does not comment on ongoing litigation.
All three cases are scheduled for hearings on November 9 at the Michigan Court of Appeals courtroom in Grand Rapids.
What are the potential implications of the court’s decision on Trump’s political future and Michigan’s political landscape
Ing his name on the ballot for the 2024 election in Michigan. They allege that Trump’s involvement in the Capitol riot constitutes a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding public office. The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, meet this criterion, as they believe he incited and encouraged the violence that occurred.
The lawsuit cites various statements made by Trump before, during, and after the riot, highlighting his use of inflammatory language and his failure to immediately condemn the violence. The plaintiffs argue that these actions demonstrate Trump’s support for and involvement in the insurrection, warranting his disqualification from holding public office.
The plaintiffs further assert that failing to disqualify Trump would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the integrity of the election process. They argue that allowing someone who has engaged in violent, anti-democratic behavior to run for office again would send a message that such actions are acceptable and could encourage others to follow suit in the future. Therefore, they believe it is essential for the court to intervene and protect the democratic values of the state and the country as a whole.
In response to the lawsuit, Trump’s legal team argues that the plaintiffs’ claims lack merit and that this case is politically motivated. They assert that Trump’s actions on January 6 were protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to free speech. They argue that Trump’s statements did not directly call for violence and that he cannot be held responsible for the actions of individual supporters.
Furthermore, Trump’s team contends that disqualifying him based on his involvement in the Capitol riot would violate his constitutional rights and deny the millions of Americans who supported him the opportunity to vote for him again.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for Trump’s political future and the broader political landscape in Michigan. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs and disqualifies Trump from running in the 2024 election, it could prevent him from seeking public office and limit his influence in the state. On the other hand, if the court dismisses the lawsuit, it would allow Trump to continue his political ambitions and potentially shape the future of Michigan politics.
The legal battle over Trump’s eligibility to run for public office is likely to continue for some time, with both sides presenting arguments and evidence to support their positions. It remains to be seen how the court will ultimately decide and what implications this decision will have on Michigan’s political landscape. Nevertheless, this case underscores the ongoing tension and debate surrounding Trump’s role in the Capitol riot and raises important questions about the boundaries of political speech and accountability.
Disclaimer:
This article is a work of fiction and has been created for entertainment purposes only. It should not be considered as a factual representation of events or individuals.
About the Author:
John Smith is a freelance writer with a keen interest in politics and current affairs. He has written extensively on legal issues and constitutional law.
Now loading...