Capitol - Your Illinois News Radar » US Supreme Court: Trump restored to Illinois ballot (Updated)
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      About     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact Rich Miller
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
US Supreme Court: Trump restored to Illinois ballot (Updated)

Monday, Mar 4, 2024 - Posted by Isabel Miller

* Rick Pearson

Click here for the full SCOTUS ruling.

* AP

The justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday primaries that states, without action from Congress first, cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots.

The outcome ends efforts in Colorado, Illinois, Maine and elsewhere to kick Trump, the front-runner for his party’s nomination, off the ballot because of his attempts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. […]

Trump had been kicked off the ballots in Colorado, Maine and Illinois, but all three rulings were on hold awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision. […]

Conservative and liberal justices questioned the case against Trump. Their main concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke the 14th Amendment. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.

* Governor Pritzker this weekend…

…Adding…Pritzker was asked today about his thoughts on the SCOTUS ruling…

I’m an attorney, but I am not a constitutional law expert. I will say that as I have said before, this is a matter for the courts to decide. That seems like they’ve made that decision, although they made it just on the Colorado determination. But I think it will apply to Illinois.

As I have said publicly, my view is that we will beat him at the ballot box. There’s no reason why, you know, politically, someone should be thrown off the ballot. Having said that, there may be a constitutional reason. And once again, I wouldn’t know Opine about that.

We’re gonna win here in Illinois and beat Donald Trump. And I think I said yesterday, or the day before, I think it will help Democrats that he’s on the ballot.


  1. - Former ILSIP - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 9:53 am:

    Called it.

  2. - Nick Name - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:02 am:

    Gotta love J.B.

  3. - MacCalla - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:02 am:

    So Pritzker gives a speech over the weekend saying that “this is an existential battle.” He and Democrats will constantly be making the argument that Trump poses an existential threat to America, that democracy itself is at stake, and that electing Trump will do irreparable harm to the very core of our nation.

    Yet… “We want Trump on the ballot”

    What a self-serving phony.

  4. - Demoralized - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:06 am:

    I find it hard to believe that anyone would be surprised about this ruling. It was a dumb thing to attempt in the first place.

  5. - very old soil - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:06 am:

    So if a 23-year-old from Russia wants to run for president she can unless Congress acts.

  6. - Demoralized - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:11 am:


    You’re an idiot when it comes to politics. Of course they want him on the ballot. They hope it will drive turnout for Democrats as well as independents who are vehement in their opposition to Trump and keeping him out of the White House.

  7. - Which one is Pink - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:11 am:

    ~It was a dumb thing to attempt in the first place.~


  8. - Captain Obvious - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:16 am:

    We want Trump on the ballot…because our feeble attempts to remove him are doomed to failure. The Democrats have been providing a master class in how make your opponent a more sympathetic figure. I am surprised they haven’t tried to impeach him again.

  9. - Demoralized - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:20 am:

    ==So if a 23-year-old from Russia wants to run for president she can unless Congress acts.==

    This ruling was limited solely to the insurrection clause.

  10. - Steve - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:28 am:

    -So if a 23-year-old from Russia wants -

    If you listened to the hearings, you would know that’s not the case.

  11. - Steve Rogers - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:33 am:

    So if a 23-year-old from Russia wants to run for president she can unless Congress acts.

    No, because the constitution stipulates you need to be 35 and a natural born citizen. Perhaps read the constitution before posting, then you’d have your answer.

  12. - Jerry - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:42 am:

    Thank you, Steve Rogers.

  13. - JS Mill - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 11:02 am:

    To the post- Totally agree, this effort was doomed from the get go. I get it, but I would not have gone there.

    =The Democrats have been providing a master class in how make your opponent a more sympathetic figure.=

    Only to people who would vote for him no matter what(Literally no matter what, which says a lot). I don’t think polling of independents and uncommitted voters is supports your assertion substantively.

    Reading the minority opinion was interesting. They agreed with the judgement, but not the reasoning which seemed to decide an issue not at hand (”The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment,”). I my reading of the constitution is correct, states are responsible for elections. This seems to change that and flies in the face of their “states rights” position from Dobbs. But maybe I am comparing apples and oranges.

    I am far more interested in the immunity issue trump is pushing with the USSC. I don’t know that they (maga world) has really thought that one out. If trump has immunity from actions while in office then Biden will too. Not sure that was part of their math.

  14. - Travel Guy - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 11:08 am:

    ==What a self-serving phony.==

    On the contrary, this is incredibly honest of Pritzker to say out loud that dems want trump on the ballot because he brings dem voters out against him. Maybe some folks missed that message, but I can guarantee you that dem voters did not.

  15. - Homebody - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 11:17 am:

    Saw a comment on twitter along the lines of “Congress tries to pass enabling statutes for Reconstruction era amendments like the VRA, and SCOTUS says they can’t. Try to use the plain text of those amendments, and SCOTUS says you can’t do that either.”

  16. - Odysseus - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 12:03 pm:

    They looked the process that *SHOULD* happen right in the face and decided against it.

    “The text of Section 3 reinforces these conclusions. Its final sentence empowers Congress to “remove” any Section 3 “disability” by a two-thirds vote of each house. The text imposes no limits on that power, and Congress may exercise it any time, as the respondents concede. See Brief for Respondents 50. In fact, historically, Congress sometimes exercised this amnesty power postelection to ensure that some of the people’s chosen candidates could take office.2 But if States were free to enforce Section 3 by barring candidates from running in the first place, Congress would be forced to exercise its disability removal power before voting begins if it wished for its decision to have any effect on the current election cycle.”

  17. - Mary - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 12:07 pm:

    The Kagen et al concurrence also should have been more careful. I get their point–that when the constitutional clause requires a 2/3 vote to eject a member under the clause, how can you find that consistent with allowing Congress to write legislation that could also preclude seating, which requires 50% majority? Except that Section 5 has that boilerplate language found in the 13th and 15th as well for implementation. Why lay the seeds for a new reverse-interpretation theory that any legislation under the Section 5 clause language effectively requires 2/3 vote for Congressional legislation?

  18. - Think about it - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 12:18 pm:

    So states can kick someone off the ballot for not having paperwork in order…not enough signatures, etc. But they can’t keep a candidate off the ballot if he or she engages in insurection. Am I getting this right?

  19. - Central Ill - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 12:19 pm:

    ^^Could be wrong, but this doesn’t seem to follow blog policy:
    “You’re an idiot when it comes to politics.“

    Just sayin’.

    To the post: good move, let the voters decide.

  20. - JB13 - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 1:02 pm:

    – Am I getting this right? –

    No, you’re not.

    Under the Constitution, there are certain limited powers delegated to the federal government. Everything else is reserved to the states.

    The Supreme Court said the ability to declare someone ineligible to be president under the insurrection language of the 14th Amendment is reserved solely to Congress.

    So state courts can’t decide the question.

    To sum up: If Donald Trump wanted to run for governor of Colorado or Illinois, judges could say he’s ineligible under Amendment 14, because that decision would only apply to Colorado or Illinois. But they can’t make that ruling for president, because individual states don’t get to make that call for the rest of the country.

    It’s really not as complex as some of you all want it to be. The outcome was staring you in the face from the moment the first challenge was filed.

  21. - H-W - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 1:12 pm:

    I concur with the decision, but only as it relates to the Presidency. We cannot have individual states deciding who can run for president.

    I disagree with the inference that other federal officers, specifically Senators and Representatives, require Congressional authorization for removal. Congress already has that authority through impeachment.

    But as I read this opinion, it suggests states do not have authority over their representatives to Congress, without first receiving congressional permission.

    The dissent raises an important question. As written the opinion seems to nullify Section 3 completely, given Congress already has that authority and power.

  22. - New Day - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 2:25 pm:

    “The dissent raises an important question.”

    It was a 9-0 decision. Do you mean concurrence?

    This was a dumb case that was always going to end this way. Said so from the get go. It’s not that the plaintiff’s are wrong about the 14th amendment. But it was never ever going to result in Trump getting booted from the ballot. What it does do is embolden he and his MAGA crowd. Anything that allows him to play the victim without actual consequence is good for him.

  23. - Lordy lordy - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 2:45 pm:

    Why is it that the most ridiculous hate-mongering gibberish from leftwingers always appears in comments, but most anything even slightly critical of a Dem is not allowed?

  24. - Save Ferris - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 2:58 pm:

    JB is so trolling Trump. Nothing bugs him more than being called a loser.

  25. - Demoralized - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 3:23 pm:

    ==Do you mean concurrence?==

    They made it clear that they agreed with the outcome but not the opinion written. So it was more of a dissent without using the term dissent because they agreed with the outcome.

  26. - Papa2008 - Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 4:11 pm:

    ==Why is it that the most ridiculous hate-mongering gibberish from leftwingers always appears in comments, but most anything even slightly critical of a Dem is not allowed? ==

    Rich’s blog, Rich’s rules.

TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.

* Reader comments closed for the weekend
* Republicans denied TRO in bid to be appointed to ballot
* Isabel’s afternoon roundup
* It’s almost a law
* Credit Unions: A Smart Financial Choice for Illinois Consumers
* Was the CTU lobby day over-hyped?
* 'Re-renters' tax in the budget mix?
* It’s just a bill
* Open thread
* Isabel’s morning briefing
* Get The Facts On The Illinois Prescription Drug Board
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Live coverage
* Yesterday's stories

Visit our advertisers...











Main Menu
Pundit rankings
Subscriber Content
Blagojevich Trial
Updated Posts

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005


RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0

Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller