A number of US House Democrats have indicated that they may not confirm a potential victory for Donald Trump in the 2024 Presidential election, based on the 14th Amendment’s provision that declares insurrectionists ineligible for office.
This group of Democrats includes Representatives such as James Clyburn (SC), Jamie Raskin (MD), Adam Schiff (CA), Eric Swalwell (CA) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies. They have so far declined to pledge their confirmation of Trump to office should he emerge victorious in the next election.
As noted by Dan McLaughlin from National Review, the Democrats could potentially hold enough votes to uphold an objection to a Trump win if they manage to secure control of the House. McLaughlin stated, “Only a simple majority is required… Unlike in 2016 or 2004, when they were in the minority, House Democrats could be playing with live ammunition.” However, a majority of senators would also need to object to a Trump win. Achieving this would likely require 51 senators, which McLaughlin believes would be a difficult task for the Democrats.
The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Trump v. Anderson. This case is centered around whether a state, in this instance Colorado, has the authority to exclude Trump from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment. If the Supreme Court provides clarity that Trump is indeed eligible, the Democrats will not have grounds to object on this basis.
Most justices, including those leaning liberal, appeared hesitant to side with Colorado’s interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This provision, enacted after the Civil War, was designed to prevent anyone involved in an “insurrection” from holding office.
Attorney Jonathan Mitchell, arguing for Trump, contended that Section 3 does not explicitly refer to the “president,” but rather an “officer of the United States,” which he interprets as referring to appointed, not elected officials. He also argued against Colorado’s move to label Trump as an insurrectionist and disqualify him prior to the election.
Justice Elena Kagan expressed significant skepticism about Colorado’s argument. She questioned the state’s authority to determine this issue not only for its own citizens but also for the entire nation. She stated, “Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but also for the nation? It sounds awfully national to me… if you weren’t from Colorado, and you were from Wisconsin, or you were from Michigan, and what the Michigan secretary of state did is going to make the difference between whether candidate A is elected over Candidate B is elected? I mean that seems quite extraordinary.”
