Trump Ballot challenges progress, which varies widely in strategy and sophistication

John Anthony Castro, a 40-year-old Texas Republican presidential candidate and the most prolific challenger to Donald J. Trump’s eligibility to become president, has gone to court in at least 27 states to try to remove the former president from power . mood.

On Wednesday, Mr. Castro found himself in a largely empty courthouse in New Hampshire’s capital, making a second attempt to make his arguments; his first case was dismissed last fall.

None of Mr. Castro’s lawsuits have been successful. But the New Hampshire case is part of a growing constellation of voting challenges — some filed by established groups with national reach, many others far more homespun — playing out in more than 30 states. Challengers in Colorado and Maine have succeeded, at least temporarily, in disqualifying Mr. Trump, while other lawsuits have stalled or been dismissed. Cases have yet to be resolved in at least 21 states.

All the lawsuits have created a strange, diffuse process in which some of the most important issues of American democracy are being raised not primarily by elected officials or a political party, but by an unlikely collection of obscure figures, ordinary citizens and non -profit organizations. Even some players wonder what they are doing there.

“How did we get to this point where random brewers in Wisconsin are throwing Hail Marys in an attempt to get Trump off the ballot?” said Kirk Bangstad, a brewing company owner and liberal activist who unsuccessfully challenged Trump’s eligibility with the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Mr. Bangstad, who is now considering a lawsuit, readily admits that he wishes a more prominent person had taken up the case.

While the voting challenges vary in format, location and sophistication, they share a focus on whether Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat leave him ineligible to run for president again. The cases are based on a largely untested clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which took effect after the Civil War. The clause prohibits federal or state officials “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office.

Some lawyers have argued since 2021 that the clause could prevent Mr. Trump from appearing on a presidential ballot, and in 2023, lawsuits were filed in several states invoking this theory. Trump was ineligible for the primary vote in that state due to the 14th Amendment, pushing the issue to the center of American politics. When Maine’s Democratic secretary of state announced last week that she, too, was disqualifying Trump, the issue only gained more attention.

Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, described the lawsuits in a statement last week as “bad faith, politically motivated efforts to steal the 2024 election,” claiming that Democrats had “a legal campaign on multiple fronts launched to disenfranchise tens of millions of citizens.” American voters and meddling in the election.” Mr Cheung did not respond to a request for comment on this article.

Mr. Trump on Tuesday filed a lawsuit in state court in Maine seeking to overturn the secretary of state’s decision, and on Wednesday he asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Colorado ruling.

The issue couldn’t be more urgent: The Republican primaries and caucuses begin this month, and polls show Trump with a wide lead over his opponents.

In the meantime, other cases continue to wind their way through state and federal court systems.

These lawsuits generally fall into three categories: Mr. Castro’s lawsuits, almost all of which have been filed in federal court; state challenges filed by two nonprofits; and one-off cases brought by local residents in state or federal courts. In a handful of places — most notably in Maine, but also in Illinois, North Carolina and Wisconsin — voters have challenged Trump’s eligibility directly before a secretary of state or an election board, rather than in court. In California and New York, some elected officials have written letters urging election officials in those states to disqualify or consider disqualifying the former president.

Most establishment Democrats have not publicly embraced the cause. President Biden said after the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that it was “self-evident” that Mr. Trump had supported an insurrection, but that it was up to the judiciary to determine his eligibility to vote. Several Democratic secretaries of state, who in much of the country are their states’ top election officials, have placed Mr. Trump on candidate lists and have been referred to the courts over his eligibility.

The two national groups – Free Speech for People, which has filed lawsuits in Michigan, Minnesota and Oregon and appealed to the State Board of Elections in Illinois, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, known as CREW, which represents the Colorado brought cases – have concentrated in state courts. The Supreme Courts of Michigan and Minnesota refused to remove Trump from the primaries in those states. The Oregon lawsuit and the Illinois appeal, filed Thursday, are still pending.

Ben Clements, the president of Free Speech for People, said he believed challenges originating in federal court would be “unhelpful” to the disqualification case, due to concerns that plaintiffs do not have the legal standing to file a lawsuit. to file a case. But he said the series of lawsuits in state courts — such challenges were pending this week in California, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Wisconsin and Wyoming — were welcome.

“Even if we wanted to, and even if CREW had chosen to file multiple lawsuits, we’re not going to hit all 50 states,” Mr. Clements said.

Many people expect the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately make a decision on Mr. Trump’s eligibility. And outside of a few states, the challenges have so far failed to gain traction.

Some cases have been dismissed, including a federal lawsuit in Virginia and Mr. Bangstad’s complaint in Wisconsin, both last week. Others have been dropped, including several lawsuits from Mr. Castro and a state case in New Jersey brought by John Bellocchio, a former history teacher. In an interview, Mr. Bellocchio said he was working on a second lawsuit and was motivated by concerns that the former president and his supporters “envisioned a Christian theocracy.”

“You can’t have a theocracy and a democracy at the same time,” Mr. Bellocchio said in an interview.

By far the most persistent litigant is Mr. Castro, who, according to his campaign website, first ran for district office at age 19 and has since run unsuccessfully for other offices at least twice, including in a special congressional election in 2021.

Mr. Castro earned a law degree from the University of New Mexico and a master’s degree from Georgetown Law School. He said he was not licensed as a lawyer by any state, but was certified by the IRS to work on federal tax matters. Over the years he has been involved in a dizzying array of legal disputes.

Mr. Castro said he had hoped that a better-known figure would mount a Republican presidential campaign to challenge Mr. Trump’s voting qualifications, but when no one else stepped up, he decided to do it himself.

“My biggest fear was knowing how to stop Trump and having to tell my grandchildren that I had done nothing,” he said.

During Wednesday’s federal court hearing, Mr. Castro had to convince Judge Samantha Elliott that he was a genuine candidate for the Republican nomination for president and had the legal standing to file a lawsuit.

Among his evidence: He had filed reports with the Federal Election Commission (as of September, records show his campaign had raised $678), and two of his relatives had driven through New Hampshire one day in October and installed a dozen yard signs before they flew. home in Texas.

In court Wednesday, Mr. Castro at times appeared unfamiliar with legal proceedings. But he seemed to come alive when he cross-examined Michael Dennehy, a veteran political strategist and expert witness for Mr. Trump, who testified that it would be “impossible” for Mr. Castro to win delegates in the state based on his almost “non-existent” fundraising and campaign.

If Mr. Castro’s goal is to disqualify Mr. Trump, some observers have suggested his strategy could backfire.

Derek Muller, an election law expert and professor at Notre Dame law school, said Castro risked setting an adverse precedent with his failed lawsuits. Mr. Trump has already had recourse to a judge opinion in one state – in which the judge dismissed a Castro lawsuit – to strengthen his arguments in another.

Mr. Castro is “single-handedly building a precedent for Trump, unintentionally,” said Mr. Muller, who has filed briefs in two lawsuits analyzing relevant election law.

Mr. Castro disagreed. He said his lawsuits have forced Trump’s lawyers to “show their cards,” helping other challengers sharpen their arguments. He said he plans to file lawsuits in three more states this month.

Tracey Tully reporting contributed. Susan C. Beachy And Kirsten Noyes research contributed.