A decision this week by the Colorado Supreme Court that former President Donald Trump is not eligible to appear on the state’s ballot could help make the case for a similar effort in Michigan.
The group Free Speech for People argues that Trump is not eligible to run under the insurrection clause of the U.S. Constitution. That is due to his role in the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Mark Brewer is an attorney representing Free Speech for People. He added a copy of the Colorado decision to the group’s filing with the Michigan Supreme Court. He said the Colorado arguments are very similar to what his group is arguing in Michigan.
“The issues under the 14th Amendment are identical,” he told Michigan Public Radio. “Trump engaged in this conduct. He satisfies all of the elements. We’re hoping and urging the Michigan Supreme Court to follow the path that’s now been blazed by the Colorado Supreme Court.”
That includes the question of whether the president is subject to the insurrection clause of the U.S. Constitution, which was originally intended to bar former Confederate officials from public office following the Civil War.
“Is the presidency an office of the United States? Yes. Is the president an officer of the United States? Yes,” he said. “Did Trump engage in insurrection as defined in Section 3 (of the 14th Amendment), and the Colorado court says yes.”
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment, though it called the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision “completely flawed.” The Trump campaign has said it will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Free Speech for People has asked the Michigan Supreme Court to quickly take the case and put it on a very fast track to make a decision by Monday. That would leave time for further appeals and for lower courts to comply with the decision and meet ballot deadlines.
If the Michigan Supreme Court declines the case or does not respond, that would leave in place lower-court decisions that Trump can appear on the February Republican primary ballot. The Michigan Court of Appeals declined to rule on whether Trump can appear on the November ballot because it considered the question premature before there is a Republican nominee.
The Michigan Republican Party released a statement Wednesday that called the lawsuit an “election interference tactic” engineered by Democrats. The party filed an amicus brief in the lower court cases.
“The basis of our legal argument is simple,” it said. “If nominated candidates win electors, they can present their views at the convention. This is a sound nomination process that helps shape the election narrative of the people.”
