Trump's Ballot Appearance Challenged By Massachusetts Residents

Massachusetts voters, backed by advocacy group Free Speech For People and civil rights firm Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C, are seeking to enforce the 14th Amendment to block Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s primary and general election ballot.

What Happened: The objection, first noted in Cape Cod Times, was lodged on Thursday before the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission. The plaintiffs, including former Boston Mayor Kim Janey and two prominent law professors, are invoking the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause (Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment), asserting that Trump’s role in the January 6th Capitol insurrection renders him constitutionally ineligible for public office.

The FSFP has also initiated similar legal challenges in states such as Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon, and Illinois. Recently, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Secretary of State ruled that Trump is disqualified from appearing on their state ballots under the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment.

See Also: Secret Shoppers In Oklahoma Cannabis Dispensaries, Nevadans Can Buy Twice As Much Weed & More

Why It Matters: Massachusetts is the latest state where residents are attempting to bar Trump from the Republican presidential primary and general election ballot.

It is pertinent to note that the Massachusetts resident’s objection cites the Colorado Supreme Court decision as an Exhibit. The missive also mentions the decision taken by the Maine Secretary of State to disqualify Trump from the state’s ballot.

The Massachusetts move follows an apprehensive prediction by Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) that more states would likely follow Maine’s path in barring Trump from the 2024 primary ballot.

In the wake of these challenges, Trump has taken legal action to fight these rulings. He has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to retain his position on the Colorado primary ballot and sued to reclaim his spot on Maine’s primary ballot.

These legal battles set a significant precedent, illustrating that states have the authority to adjudicate Section 3 challenges with no prior criminal conviction requirement under this section.

Photo by Lev Radin on Shutterstock

Read Next: US Court Publicly Releases Epstein List, Unveiling 187 Previously Anonymous Individuals — Financier’s Brother Makes Claims About Trump, Clintons