The Supreme Court’s voting advice ends the uncertainty, but not the anger
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday brought certainty to a primary season marred by confusing and divergent rulings at the state level, unanimously ruling that the 14th Amendment did not allow states to disqualify former President Donald J. Trump.
But the reaction to the ruling showed that the challenges to Trump’s candidacy had sharpened political divides and angered Republicans, who saw the lawsuits as an anti-democratic attempt to interfere in the election. And the ruling was made as voters in more than a dozen states prepared for the Super Tuesday primaries.
“It motivated people to get involved,” said Brad Wann, caucus coordinator for the Republican Party in Colorado, the first of three states to disqualify Trump and the state at the center of the Supreme Court case. “They feel like Democrats in this state are trying to take away basic rights. People are talking in coffee shops and in churches saying we can’t let this happen.”
The voting challenges, filed in more than 30 states, focused on whether Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat prevented him from running for president again. The cases were based on a clause of the 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War, that bars government officials who were “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office.
On Monday, all nine Supreme Court justices agreed that individual states could not bar candidates for president under the insurrection provision. Four judges would have left it at that. A majority of five Justices, in an unsigned opinion, further said that Congress should take action to give that section strength.
In Illinois, where the Supreme Court’s decision overruled a state judge’s ruling last week that Mr. Trump was ineligible, many voters said Mr. Trump belonged on the ballot.
The former president had remained in the three disqualifying states — Colorado, Illinois and Maine — while he appealed those rulings. The Supreme Court’s judgment provided a definitive solution.
“People are coming up with everything they can against him,” said Herbert Polchow, 67, a Republican retiree in Rankin, Illinois, who said the voting challenges were just a way for Democrats to prevent Trump from becoming president again.
Zachary Spence, 42, of Danville, Illinois, said the Supreme Court’s decision was a victory for voters.
“You can’t take away people’s choice,” said Mr. Spence, a supporter of the former president.
In Colorado, Patrick Anderson said he voted for Trump twice but would not do so a third time because of Trump’s denial of the 2020 election results. He said he agreed with the Supreme Court to some extent .
“I think the starting point should be to let the voter have their say,” said the 77-year-old Anderson. “But I don’t think there should be a popularity contest when there is a crime.”
While Republican officials were united in opposing the voting challenges, the issue had divided Democrats, some of whom doubted the political and legal merits of challenging Mr. Trump.
Even for those who supported the voting challenges, Monday’s ruling brought clarity after weeks of uncertainty.
“I believe Colorado should be able to exclude oath-breaking insurrectionists from our presidential elections, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees,” said Jena Griswold, Colorado’s secretary of state and a Democrat. “So in accordance with that, Donald Trump is an eligible candidate and the votes for him will be counted in the state of Colorado.”
Shenna Bellows, the Democratic secretary of state of Maine, who in December ruled that Mr. Trump was ineligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot, issued an updated ruling on Monday reflects the Supreme Court’s ruling. “Consistent with my oath and obligation to follow the law and the Constitution,” she wrote, “I hereby withdraw my determination that Mr. Trump’s primary petition is invalid.”
The new certainty, officials on both sides of the issue agreed, was important. The primaries in Colorado and Maine are on Tuesday and the primaries in Illinois are on March 19.
“Now that this decision has been made, voters in Super Tuesday states can hold their elections without any additional distractions related to this issue,” said Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen, a Republican.
Those leading the effort to remove Trump from the ballot expressed disappointment and stood by their resolve to meet the challenges.
Ben Clements, the president of Free Speech for People, a group that has filed several state-level challenges, called the Supreme Court’s ruling “a great disservice to the country and to our constitutional democracy.” He said in an interview that the effort to disqualify Mr. Trump was “absolutely a battle worth fighting.”
Some voters agreed. Richard Utman, 69, a political independent from Palermo, Maine, said he was disappointed in the court’s decision and that “the ruling shows that the Constitution has been violated.”
“He’s a criminal,” Mr. Utman said. ‘He has no business function. He has nothing to do with the presidency.”
John Anthony Castro, a Republican presidential candidate who has filed federal lawsuits in more than 20 states challenging Trump’s eligibility, said he did not believe the Supreme Court’s opinion would prevent him from pursuing his lawsuits. None of Mr. Castro’s lawsuits have been successful, and many have been dismissed or withdrawn.
Many Republicans used stark language to describe the challenges facing Trump, and some spoke ominously about what would have happened if the Supreme Court had reached the opposite decision.
Jay Ashcroft, Missouri’s secretary of state, had previously said that conservative states could try to disqualify President Biden if the Supreme Court had allowed Trump to be removed from the ballot.
“I am grateful that the Supreme Court has put an end to this idiotic attempt to undermine our election process,” said Mr. Ashcroft, a Republican.
Senator Deb Fischer, Republican of Nebraska, said: “Americans can celebrate that the Supreme Court has rejected this authoritarian attempt that would disrupt our elections and prevent Donald Trump from even running for office.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, praised the ruling and accused Colorado of a “blatant attempt to undermine the will of the American people in the upcoming presidential election.”
Some voters who didn’t like Trump said they also agreed with the Supreme Court.
At a voting location in Wheaton, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, Laura Edwards said she worried that the legal battle over Trump’s appearance on the ballots might have given him a political boost.
“It gives him more attention and he will use this as a victory,” said Ms. Edwards, 42, who voted in the Democratic primary. “They should have left him on the ballot and given us hope that logical people won’t vote for him.”
Karl Klockars, 78, a Wheaton lawyer who voted early for a candidate other than Mr. Trump in the Republican primaries, said the Supreme Court “did the right thing, and that is reflected in the fact that there were no dissenters.”
And Gregory Hinote, 64, a retiree from Danville, said he normally didn’t vote in the primaries but did so this time because he believed voting was the best way to prevent Trump from becoming president again.
“Voting is the right thing to do,” said Mr. Hinote, who opted for a Democratic primary. “I think we should vote and vote him out. That’s the way to do it – not ban state by state.”
Robert Chiarito reported from Wheaton, Illinois, Farrah Anderson from Danville, Illinois, Dave Phillips from Colorado Springs and Mitch Smith from Chicago. Reporting was contributed by Maggie Astor, Murray Carpenter, Adam Liptak And Jenna Russell.