Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Illinois State Board of Elections bows to precedent, punts on Trump ballot status

Posted in:

Illinois

* Background from Rick’s earlier story…

A state elections hearing officer agreed with objectors that former President Donald Trump “engaged in insurrection” at the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, but said he believed it is up to the courts and not the State Board of Elections to decide whether to remove him from the March 19 Illinois primary ballot.

The nonbinding recommendation from Clark Erickson, a retired Republican judge from Kankakee County, comes ahead of the state election board’s meeting Tuesday to certify the names that will appear on the primary ballot. […]

Section 3 of the post-Civil War era amendment says those who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution “as member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state,” shall not be able to serve in Congress or “hold any office, civil or military” if they have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution.

Erickson said previous Illinois Supreme Court rulings bar the State Board of Elections from acting on candidate disqualifications based on constitutional analysis. Because of those rulings, he said, the board should reject the Trump ballot objection.

“It is impossible to imagine the Board deciding whether Candidate Trump is disqualified by Section 3 without the Board engaging in significant and sophisticated constitutional analysis,” Erickson wrote. “All in all, attempting to resolve a constitutional issue within the expedited schedule of an election board hearing is somewhat akin to scheduling a two-minute round between heavyweight boxers in a telephone booth.”

* From the 14th Amendment…

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

But there’s also Section 5…

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Deep breaths, please.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 11:27 am

Comments

Good call.

Who needs the headaches. Plus, all those southern Illinoisan right-wingers who just knew “Pritzker would keep him off the ballot” can just eat it.

Yes, I know, it wasn’t Pritzker’s call.

Comment by Flyin'Elvis'-Utah Chapter Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 11:31 am
Meh. Seems like basically everybody with any semblance of authority is punting on the issue as they don’t want to be the ones to actually hold the insurrectionist accountable. Based on the explanation, it seems like the technically correct call, but I won’t be holding my breath that the state supreme court or general assembly or anyone else with autority witll do anything either.

Comment by TJ Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 11:37 am
Those were tourists on January 6th. /s

Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 11:38 am
Slightly surprised

Comment by Central Illinois Centrist Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 11:40 am
Looking for the Supremes to take strong action to protect this country. Encouraging Republican governors to send national guardtroops to Texas to support Abbott in defying the government and a Supreme Court ruling sure looks like continuing action against the government and further leans into promoting insurrection to me. It’s continuing… it hasn’t even stopped.

Comment by Lincoln Lad Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 11:50 am
Punt is the right move. Leave this to the US Supreme Court and ultimately the voters. Why give MAGAland another conspiracy target? They’ve got their hands full with Taylor Swift and Maauto (Travis Kelce).

Comment by New Day Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 11:50 am
Yes, it’s not happening for obvious reasons. However, I was persuaded by Judge Luttig et al. that it would have been the correct decision to remove him. I laugh at the pundits who worry about how MAGAts would react. They’re going to react in the most unreasonable way regardless. MAGAts don’t give you credit when you respond in a manner to assuage their concerns.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 11:54 am
Hot potato.
Good call.

Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 11:55 am
It’d be nice if the US Supreme Court got around to hearing and ruling on this somewhat time-sensitive matter. And also the question around immunity that is further delaying accountability in the January 6th insurrection. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but also, justice delayed is something something.

They will get to this presumably after they gut some more environmental regulations and other miscellaneous matters.

Seriously, it really feels like all of our various institutions are broken.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 12:04 pm
Presumably the objectors will now take it to court.

Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 12:07 pm
–it seems like the technically correct call–

It seems that way, if the citations are accurate.

I’d like to see the cases being cited to arrive at this conclusion. Specifically.
I read a few about judges and automatic retirement being on the ballot, but not much more.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 12:09 pm
=== They’re going to react in the most unreasonable way regardless.

Exactly. The other problem is the plain language reading of the amendment is clear. The BoE is probably right on the technical point, but this is the problem of writing an amendment and not spelling out the mechanism for enforcement (I understand what Rich pointed out, but that was not done for the Confederates who were banned from federal office back in the day).

Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 12:16 pm
I keep hearing from pundits that there is no way Trump will be kept off the ballot by the Supreme Court. But what I do not hear are arguments as why the SC will strike down the 14th Amendment challenge. Judge Luttig and others have made a solid argument. I hope the SC listens.

Comment by Terry Salad Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 12:16 pm
===But what I do not hear are arguments as why the SC will strike down the 14th Amendment challenge===

Section 5.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 12:17 pm
SCOTUS will hear arguments on the Colorado case (which in effect will represent all of the state cases) on February 8th. Nothing to see here until then. You can read both sides’ arguments here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html

Comment by School Guy Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 12:22 pm
And to be clear, I do think that Rich is right about how the Court will avoid this. I just disagree with the Court.

Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 12:29 pm
The Illinois State Board of Elections did not punt on this case, but followed the law. Electoral Boards in Illinois do not have the authority to decide constitutional issues, but must rely upon legal precedents established by the courts.

Comment by Gravitas Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 12:36 pm
Gonna need a fact check on his claim that he “loves Illinois” lmao

https://x.com/benszalinski/status/1752407427767517300?s=46&t=1zmJTUwTZY8aWTv_MrbeAA

Comment by vern Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 1:11 pm
“But what I do not hear are arguments as why the SC will strike down the 14th Amendment challenge.”

They are going to be looking for a way out. I know what Judge Luttig says and he’s probably right, but I think they should say that because he has not been adjudicated by a court to have participated in an insurrection they can’t kick him off the ballot. I want to see Trump spanked but the only way to do it properly and have any legitimacy is to do so at the ballot box. And even then, Trump doesn’t accept defeat so he’ll do what he did last time and lie. Still, let’s do this the right way.

Comment by New Day Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 1:30 pm
=== legitimacy is to do so at the ballot box ===

Like the insurrectionists accepted in 2020?

I pray for our country and our democracy that Biden wins. Even then, the only way we’re going to avoid a repeat of 2020 in 2024 is for Trump and his coconspirators to be thrown in prison.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 2:14 pm
=legitimacy is to do so at the ballot box=

Some of those ballot boxes aren’t as legitimate as they were in 2020. The insurrectionists have had 4 years to perfect what they almost pulled off in a matter of weeks.

Comment by Pundent Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 4:41 pm
Yes just wait for the court to decide. Personally I think it will be quite simple but could be surprising.

Comment by clec dcn Tuesday, Jan 30, 24 @ 5:52 pm