Kicking Trump off the ballot won’t be easy. Here’s why

WASHINGTON — 

The argument that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution bars Donald Trump from the ballot has rapidly gone from obscurity to the top of the political agenda.

In August, when I wrote about why the 14th Amendment needed to be taken seriously and how it had the potential to up-end the 2024 presidential campaign, a lot of people doubted the issue would get traction.

Now, it’s about to land at the U.S. Supreme Court. Within the next couple of weeks, the justices almost certainly will announce that they will review Tuesday’s ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, which barred Trump from that state’s primary ballot.

Newsletter

Get our Essential Politics newsletter

The latest news, analysis and insights from our politics team.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

But getting to the Supreme Court may prove to have been the easy part. To win, Trump’s opponents have to surmount some big hurdles. Perhaps the toughest stems from Congress’ failure to take action in response to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

What’s at stake?

The 4-3 ruling by Colorado’s highest court held that Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 attack amounted to “engag[ing] in an insurrection.” Under the 14th Amendment, that means Trump is barred from holding any federal office, including the presidency, the Colorado court ruled.

The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War. Section 3 of the amendment, written to prevent former leaders of the Confederacy from regaining power, says this:

“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.”

The gist is clear: A person who has taken an oath as an “officer of the United States” and then has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” cannot “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States” unless two-thirds of Congress votes to allow it.

The details, however, are thorny. Among the unresolved questions:

The Colorado court ruling affects only Colorado. Logically, however, if the Constitution bans Trump from office, the ban is effective in all states. Either he’s eligible or he isn’t. That’s why the U.S. Supreme Court almost certainly will take up the case — it’s the only body that can ensure uniformity of the law across the country.

Of the nine justices on the high court, six are Republicans. But partisanship may not save Trump; the justices have already shown their willingness to rebuff him, rejecting appeals by his allies after he lost the 2020 presidential election, for example.

One easy question, two really hard ones

Trump’s lawyers argue that the amendment doesn’t apply to the presidency. The text specifically mentions senators and representatives, they note, but doesn’t mention the president.

The Colorado Supreme Court rejected that argument. “Any office, civil or military” clearly includes the nation’s highest office, the judges said. Any other reading would be inconsistent with the purpose of the amendment — to prevent rebels from regaining positions of power.

“President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,” they wrote. That would be “inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.”

Most legal scholars who have written about the 14th Amendment take that side.

The other questions have generated more disagreement.

Was Jan. 6 an insurrection? The riot was a violent attack on the seat of government, and it temporarily disrupted congressional business. But it was a far cry from the Civil War, which took the lives of 2% of the entire U.S. population — the equivalent of 6 million people today. Just what did the authors of the 14th Amendment have in mind when they wrote “insurrection or rebellion”?

“These are demanding terms, connoting only the most serious of uprisings against the government, such as the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War,” wrote professor Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School, one of the scholars who has argued for a narrow reading of what’s covered. “The terms of Section 3 should not be defined down to include mere riots or civil disturbances, which are common in United States history,” he wrote.

Other scholars take the opposite view.

Who gets to decide?

If Jan. 6 was an insurrection, did Trump “engage” in it?

That’s not purely a legal question, it’s a factual one — the sort normally resolved by a trial. The 14th Amendment doesn’t say, however, that it applies to people who are “convicted” of insurrection, instead it bars those who have “engaged” in one. That suggests something less than a full-dress criminal trial may suffice, but clearly some process has to exist to decide whether any particular individual is covered.

In Colorado, state district Judge Sarah B. Wallace held a five-day hearing, starting Oct. 30, in which she took testimony about Jan. 6. In mid-November, she ruled that Trump had engaged in the insurrection.

But was that hearing fair? Trump’s lawyers say no. So does one of the three dissenting Colorado Supreme Court justices, Carlos Samour Jr. The hearing was “stripped … of many basic protections that normally accompany a civil trial, never mind a criminal trial,” he wrote in his dissent. “I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom.”

Even if the U.S. Supreme Court feels that the process was fair, it’s highly unlikely the justices would allow a single state-court judge to make a factual finding for the entire country. But allowing each of the 50 states to make its own decision seems equally undesirable, inviting a cacophony of conflicting rulings.

That’s the central problem with the whole case, Samour wrote, warning about “the potential chaos wrought by an imprudent, unconstitutional, and standardless system in which each state gets to adjudicate Section 3 disqualification cases on an ad hoc basis.”

The Supreme Court makes rulings on the law, not findings of fact, so it’s not in a position to create a fair process for deciding if Trump — or anyone else — is an insurrectionist.

Congress is the one body that could solve the problem. It could do what a previous Congress did after the Civil War and, by law, create a procedure for deciding who has engaged in conduct covered by the 14th Amendment’s ban.

That, however, is not going to happen. Ever since Jan. 6, Trump’s Republican allies have made sure that lawmakers would take no action beyond holding hearings.

Their support spared Trump from conviction after he was impeached. Now, there’s a good chance the Supreme Court will rule that the 14th Amendment can’t be enforced against Trump because no fair procedure exists to establish the relevant facts. If so, the congressional blockade against accountability will have scored a crucial victory.

Enjoying this newsletter? Consider subscribing to the Los Angeles Times

Your support helps us deliver the news that matters most. Become a subscriber.

A review of a tumultuous year

Column: The year America burned, literally and figuratively

A political giant, California’s Dianne Feinstein, died after serving more than 30 years in the Senate. The state lost not one but two House speakers. All of that intrigue played out as the country endured society-shaking turmoil. Times columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak weigh in on what went wrong in 2023, what brings hope and why 2024 will be a pivotal year.

The latest from the campaign trail

California Democrats want Trump off their ballot too

California Democrats are hoping to bounce Trump from California’s ballot, too. Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, a Democrat who is running for governor in 2026, sent a letter Wednesday to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber urging her “to explore every legal option” to remove Trump from the March 5 ballot because of his role in Jan. 6, Noah Bierman reported.

The latest from Washington

Trump’s fate rests with U.S. Supreme Court in two unprecedented cases

The Supreme Court faces two pressing legal questions about Trump and his alleged misconduct in office, David Savage and Sarah Wire reported. In addition to the case over the 14th Amendment, Trump’s attorneys have urged the high court to rule that the former president is immune from criminal prosecution over his speeches, tweets and other “official acts” that led up to the Jan. 6 attack.

The latest from California

Column: Who will make sure L.A. reaches 100% clean energy by 2035?

Few people have a more important role to play in confronting the climate crisis than the head of the L.A. Department of Water and Power. Although DWP is best known for its history of shady water grabs, it’s also a hugely influential player in the energy world. So if you care about limiting the deadly heat waves, destructive wildfires and other harms of global warming, you should care that Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is looking for a new general manager for DWP, Sammy Roth writes.

One of California’s largest ICE detention centers could close. Staff urge Biden to keep it open

Workers at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, one of California’s largest immigrant detention facilities, are urging the federal government not to shut it down next year, according to the union that represents many of them, Andrea Castillo reported.

Rep. Grace Napolitano’s retirement sets up battle for coveted San Gabriel Valley seat

The race to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Grace F. Napolitano, who has represented swaths east and southeast of Los Angeles since BillClinton was president, pits a wealthy outsider against a roster of lesser-known, hometown candidates with deep ties to the San Gabriel Valley congressional district, Anabel Sosa reported.

Sign up for our California Politics newsletter to get the best of The Times’ state politics reporting.