As the debate over whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from seeking the presidency heats up again, legal experts are beginning to explore a different angle on the issue – one that delves into traditional election law issues. While much of the discourse has focused on constitutional law, the emerging litigation also raises considerations about candidates’ eligibility for federal office under federal or state election laws.
In a recent post on the Election Law Blog, Derek Muller sheds light on Trump’s merits brief in Trump v. Anderson. Muller suggests that while the focus has been primarily on constitutional claims, the case has the potential to become a landmark election law case, perhaps the most significant in over three decades. Interestingly, Muller notes that election law doctrines may provide more support for Trump’s position than the constitutional arguments he’s making.
In particular, Trump’s strategies differ from those of previous challengers such as Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene. While Cawthorn and Greene took an offensive approach, filing ancillary cases in federal court and exploiting voting rights issues, Trump has largely taken a defensive stance, framing the case within the context provided by the plaintiffs – as a constitutional question under Section 3.
Despite the importance of the ballot access dispute, it has received relatively little attention from election law scholars. Few have weighed in, and the amicus briefs that have been filed reflect a degree of hesitancy and uncertainty about the underlying merits.
However, as the legal battle progresses, it is increasingly likely that the case will pivot on election law considerations, particularly if the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favour. Muller argues that while many of the arguments in Trump’s brief are weak, the justices’ response during oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson could provide valuable insight into the direction the Court may take.
In conclusion, while the litigation surrounding Trump’s eligibility for the presidency has largely revolved around constitutional law, the nuanced exploration of election law issues adds another layer to the discussion. As the Court prepares to hear oral arguments, the outcome of Trump v. Anderson remains uncertain, but the broader implications for election law and ballot access will reverberate across the legal landscape.