Portland, OR – January 12th, 2024 – On Friday, the Oregon Supreme Court declined to entertain a request aimed at excluding former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban,” stating that it awaits the US Supreme Court’s decision on the matter.
This decision follows actions in Colorado and Maine, where Trump was removed from the ballot due to assessments by judges and officials that his involvement in the January 6 insurrection makes him ineligible for office. However, these decisions are currently on hold to allow for appeals.
Contrastingly, Trump has seen success in other states, where legal challenges were dismissed on procedural grounds without addressing the January 6 questions. He overcame challenges in Minnesota, Michigan, and Arizona, and California’s top election official opted to keep him on the ballot. The Oregon court refrained from ruling on the challenge’s merits, explicitly referencing the ongoing litigation at the US Supreme Court, which is set to hear oral arguments in the Colorado case on February 8.
Similar lawsuits, initiated by Trump critics nationwide, assert that they are simply seeking to uphold the 14th Amendment. They argue that the “insurrection ban” aims to protect the country from individuals like Trump, who they believe violated his oath of office during attempts to overturn the 2020 election and incite the Capitol riot.
Trump contends that these lawsuits are thinly veiled attempts to misuse the legal system and manipulate the Constitution to prevent him from returning to the White House, asserting that he cannot be defeated at the polls.
The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, disqualifies US officials who have “engaged in insurrection” or provided “aid or comfort” to insurrectionists from holding future office. However, the Constitution lacks clarity on how to enforce this ban, leading to uncertainties about its applicability to the presidency.
Free Speech For People, a liberal advocacy group, initiated the lawsuit in Oregon late last year. The group expressed disappointment with the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision, stating that waiting for the US Supreme Court’s order limits the time available for the Oregon court to address any remaining issues.
