Massachusetts is among a handful of states contesting former President Donald Trump’s ability to appear on the 2024 ballot after he encouraged his supporters’ failed insurrection bid on January 6th, 2021. Trump has been removed from the Colorado and Maine primary ballots already and following appeals by the Trump campaign, the Supreme Court says it will rush to rule on the Constitutional question. So far, not all states have ruled that Trump is ineligible for the ballot, with California and Michigan rejecting similar calls. The group pushing the effort in Massachusetts, Free Speech for People, is carrying out similar campaigns in Illinois, Oregon, and Minnesota. The Trump campaign and its supporters dismiss the efforts as election interference. Former Senate and state attorney general candidate Shannon Liss-Riordan is leading the effort in Massachusetts. She spoke with WAMC.
LISS-RIORDAN: The United States Constitution has a provision, it's referred to as the insurrectionist clause. It's Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It states quite clearly that anyone who is engaged in an insurrection and has violated a previous oath of office cannot serve in office again. So, we are using Massachusetts law to challenge Donald Trump’s inclusion on the ballot this year because he is ineligible under the United States Constitution.
WAMC: Now, we've seen similar efforts cut both ways across the country- The Colorado Supreme Court took Trump off the ballot, and in Maine, the Secretary of State eliminated him, but in Michigan and California, the courts there have decided differently, saying that he can remain on the ballot. What does it tell you about the likelihood of the Massachusetts effort?
Well, I'm looking forward to pushing this forward in Massachusetts. The states that have not accepted this challenge so far have really done it on procedural grounds. In Colorado and Maine, there were actual substantive decisions about how this provision applied, and those states got it right. So, I'm hopeful that the Massachusetts Ballot Commission – and if necessary, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court – will look at the situation and see this is exactly the situation this type of provision was intended for, to keep someone like Donald Trump off the ballot because he has made himself ineligible to serve again.
Now, there's a chance that Supreme Court rules on this before voting starts in various primaries. What are your thoughts on that? What does that say about this effort on the state level, knowing that there could be a federal decision coming down?
Well, we welcome the United States Supreme Court taking this up. We were very pleased last week to see that they took the case, and they need to work quickly because this is an issue of national significance, and only through getting a ruling from the US Supreme Court will we have a national ruling. So, we're pushing for it on the Massachusetts challenge because there are strict timelines. The Massachusetts Ballot Commission has to make a decision by January 29th. The Supreme Court's not going to rule until February, they're not going to hear the case until February. And you never know what's going to happen- The Colorado case, they could decide there's some procedural issues. So, we need to push forward in Massachusetts, and I know that this challenge is being pushed forward in other states as well.
The Trump campaign and Trump's attorneys have talked about this idea that only Congress can decide who is eligible to serve as president, and they say that actions in Colorado and Maine are depriving voters of the right to choose for a candidate of their choice. Can you speak to those criticisms? What do you think about that?
The argument that Congress has to step in here is just wrong. This clause is self-executing, and there are various ways that candidates can be rendered ineligible. For example, Barack Obama cannot run again for President because he's already served two terms. So, this is something that is a legal issue for the courts to decide. And with respect to Trump, this constitutional provision – the 14th Amendment, Section 3 – has a provision. It allows Congress to overturn a decision that someone is ineligible. Congress hasn't done that. So, this is to be decided based on state law. In Massachusetts, that means first the Ballot Commission, and if necessary, the Supreme Judicial Court.
Given Trump's extreme popularity among his base and his unorthodox approach to politics, are you concerned at all that an effort to remove him from the ballot might serve to bolster the framing of Trump as a political martyr to his supporters?
Well, we are a country of laws. We have a legal system. I do have faith in our legal system. There are some people who are just not eligible to be candidates. For example, as I mentioned before, Barack Obama is not eligible to be president, because he's already served two terms. You have to be a certain age to be president. There are just certain rules, and one of the roles is that you can't be an insurrectionist. So, this is not a political issue. It's a legal issue. I'm a lawyer, and I'm looking forward to taking forward this legal challenge through our legal system which we have to rely upon.
Tell us about the group behind this effort. Who is leading this attempt to remove Trump from the Massachusetts ballot?
I'm working with the organization Free Speech for People. They have brought a number of these challenges across the country. We're representing five objectors in Massachusetts, including a mix of Republican, Independent, Democratic voters. Two of them are prominent law professors, one is the former Mayor of Boston, Kim Janey. We are looking forward to pressing this challenge.
Are you in communication with other groups around the country making similar efforts? Is there a conversation happening among the different legal activists trying to remove Trump from ballots across the country?
Yes, there has been some coordination so we are we are in touch with others who are working on this elsewhere.
What do you feel the most in Important message is for folks to understand about this larger effort?
It's important for people to understand that this is a legal issue. This is not a political issue. This is a legal issue. We have a law in this country. The United States Constitution is the is the highest law of our land, and under this law, Trump is not eligible to serve again as president. He disqualified himself through his actions in 2021, leading up to and including what he did on January 6th. It’s a very scary prospect. There's a reason why this provision was put in our Constitution- We can't have someone who took an oath of office to defend the Constitution and then violated that be put into that position of power again.
And what happens if this effort fails?
Well, this is an attempt to enforce our laws. The US Supreme Court, many of the justices have prided themselves on being textualist, meaning they apply the law as it is written, not based on any political leanings. So, my hope is that as good textualists, they will see this law, they will recognize it applies, and they will use it to disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot again.
But we also know – to use Justice Clarence Thomas as an example – that this is also a Supreme Court that's made up of members who have received considerable donations and support from right-wing activists and right-wing political groups.
Um, yes, I know the past and the history as a lawyer. The Supreme Court's actions affect all of us every day. It's an embattled institution. I think this is a moment that could allow the Supreme Court to regain some of its integrity if they follow the law, stick to their guns as textualists, and acknowledged that this provision applies here.
