Former President Donald Trump should be removed from Illinois’ primary ballot, but the decision should be left to the courts, a retired judge recommended Sunday to the state’s election board, arguing that it was clear Trump engaged in insurrection in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The Illinois State Board of Elections is expected to consider the recommendation Tuesday. Attorneys for Trump and citizens seeking to keep the Republican former president off the ballot presented their arguments Friday before the hearing officer, Clark Erickson. The retired longtime Kankakee County judge is a Republican.
The Illinois effort to keep Trump off the March ballot is similar to those filed in several other states. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments next month in an historic Colorado Supreme Court ruling to remove Trump from that state’s ballot. The case presents the high court with its first look at a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office.
Erickson’s 21-page recommendation concluded that a “preponderance of the evidence” presented proves that Trump engaged in insurrection.
Also, I can’t state this enough, he personally participated in a phone call that convinced election officials in seven states to forge elector documents and mail them in in an effort to falsely claim victory over the election he lost.
And they did that. He called them up.
That’s crazy. That seems like more of a reason to keep him off the ballot than anything else.
Heh
This is the best summary I could come up with:
CHICAGO (AP) — Former President Donald Trump should be removed from Illinois’ primary ballot, but the decision should be left to the courts, a retired judge recommended Sunday to the state’s election board, arguing that it was clear Trump engaged in insurrection in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Attorneys for Trump and citizens seeking to keep the Republican former president off the ballot presented their arguments Friday before the hearing officer, Clark Erickson.
The case presents the high court with its first look at a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office.
But he said the election board can’t engage in the “significant and sophisticated constitutional analysis” required to remove Trump’s name before the March 19 primary.
Still, Erickson noted that even if the board disagrees with his reasoning, Trump’s name should be removed from the Illinois primary ballot.
“We expect that the board and ultimately Illinois courts will uphold Judge Erickson’s thoughtful analysis of why Trump is disqualified from office, but — with the greatest respect — correct him on why Illinois law authorizes that ruling,” Ron Fein, legal director for the group, wrote in a Sunday statement.
The original article contains 376 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 46%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Someone else below got downvoted for saying it and I don’t understand why. But these cases really are pointless until the SC makes its ruling.
If the SC lets the Colorado case stand and removes him from the ballot, then the SC would be declaring him ineligible for the Presidency, effectively removing him from the ballot nationwide. If the SC strikes down the CO ruling and puts him back on the ballot, then all these other cases that the states are putting on hold pending the resolution of the CO case become moot. At this point, given the legal limbo that everything is in until the court makes its ruling, statements like this are little more than political posturing. The SC is going to decide if he is on or if he’s off.
These States are all (talking about) pulling him from the Primary ballot right? His name is so inundated with his base are they going to see the ballot and just go with Haley? I think 10x the number that pick Haley because her name is the only name on the ballot will just write him in, if they would’ve voted for him by checking the box. Or maybe not, only way to get an indication is a State pulling his name.
If he’s removed from the ballot he’s also ineligible as a write in vote.
I didn’t know that, the way they word these headlines sounded like he was still eligible for the delegates/nomination just not the advertisement on the ballot.
Thanks for the info.
There’s really no point ruling one way or another until the Supreme Court has it’s say.
