The BDN Editorial Board operates independently from the newsroom, and does not set policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com.
Donald Trump shouldn’t be president again, but the Supreme Court unanimously got it right by ruling that he should be on the ballot.
More specifically, justices unanimously agreed 9-0 that states cannot disqualify a candidate from the presidential ballot via the 14th Amendment. They did not rule on whether Trump actually engaged in insurrection, rather the authority (or lack thereof) for state officials to enforce the 14th Amendment’s Section 3.
No former president or current candidate has pushed the limits of American democracy like Trump has, and it is important to now have this clarity from the judicial branch as the 2024 presidential contest continues. As we said following Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows’ December decision to potentially bar Trump from the Maine ballot (pending this eventual judicial review), the choice of whether Trump heads back to the White House should ultimately rest with voters.
We welcome the modicum of clarity provided by this ruling, even if it raises additional questions. But the way that Trump and his Republican allies in Maine and around the country continue to misconstrue the process and lash out at individuals involved remains concerning.
We didn’t fully agree with Bellow’s conclusion about Trump’s ballot eligibility, but it was still based on a process laid out in state law. Colorado officials, and Bellows by extension, have been overruled by the Supreme Court. However, that does not mean she “tried to be a dictator” as the Maine Republican Party has ridiculously asserted.
A dictator doesn’t pause the effect of their own decision pending expedited review by the courts. A dictator doesn’t implore the judicial branch to weigh in quickly, even if it is to overrule them, in order to provide clarity to voters.
Bellows immediately reversed her decision on Trump’s ballot eligibility following the court ruling and said she thinks the “clarity is useful moving forward.”
We’ll stress once again that Bellows put her own decision on pause so that the courts could weigh in. That, along with a continued pause from a Maine judge, meant Trump was never actually removed from the Maine primary ballot. People would have been able to vote for him in Tuesday’s election even if the Supreme Court had not issued its ruling on Monday. So while a Republican state lawmaker unsuccessfully tried for a second time to impeach her, the supposed notion that she “unilaterally disenfranchised Maine voters” was beyond hyperbolic.
To be clear, this is a complicated and layered situation. We don’t think the Maine Legislature should choose constitutional officers like the secretary of state, believing there would be more accountability in these roles if they were popularly elected by voters rather than lawmakers. And the idea of a secretary of state not elected directly by voters having broad authority related to candidate ballot access decisions should give everyone pause. That’s why the provision in state law for expedited judicial review in these cases is so critical.
The state court system needs to weigh in on these ballot access questions quickly, and state lawmakers should review the relevant statute to ensure that this speedy review happens moving forward.
Trump shouldn’t be president again, but that wasn’t the question of law before the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the justices unanimously made the right call in providing nationwide clarity on this issue of ballot eligibility.
