The Oregon Supreme Court is poised to make a decision that could potentially exclude Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballots, based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.” The case was brought forward by liberal advocacy group, Free Speech For People, on behalf of a group of voters last month.
The plaintiffs argue that Trump incited the January 6 insurrection, thereby disqualifying him from future office under the 14th Amendment. The court’s decision could come at any time, marking the latest significant challenge to Trump’s potential candidacy.
Contradictory Outcomes in Different States
The case in Oregon follows a series of conflicting rulings in other states and a pending US Supreme Court appeal. Colorado’s Supreme Court and Maine’s secretary of state have already removed Trump from their ballots, citing the post-Civil War provision against insurrectionists holding office. However, Trump has seen victories in Michigan and Minnesota, where similar lawsuits were dismissed on procedural grounds.
The 14th Amendment and Its Implications
The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, disqualifies US officials who have “engaged in insurrection” or have “given aid or comfort” to insurrectionists from future office. The enforcement of this ban, however, is not explicitly outlined in the Constitution and has rarely been invoked since the late 19th century. Its application to the presidency remains a subject of legal debate.
Standing and the Role of the Secretary of State
Last week, the Oregon justices requested additional arguments regarding the standing of the challengers and the role of the secretary of state in assessing the qualifications of presidential primary candidates. The challengers argue that their right to vote in a lawfully-conducted election without the risk of major voter confusion or wasted votes on ineligible candidates gives them standing to bring the lawsuit.
They also cite past Oregon Supreme Court precedents, including a 2022 case where the justices upheld the disqualification of New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof from the governor’s race over residency issues.
Procedural Grounds and Timing
Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade has asked the court to dismiss the case on procedural grounds, arguing that the state law requiring her to determine if a candidate has “become disqualified” applies only to the general election, not the GOP primary. Lawyers for Trump concur with Griffin-Valade’s stance and also contend that the plaintiffs lack standing.
Despite the potential impact of the court’s decision, the outcome may have limited effect. Oregon is one of the last states to hold its GOP contest, and the nomination race could be decided before the state’s primary. Furthermore, Oregon’s delegates to the Republican convention will be determined by the separate state party convention.
The Court’s Composition
All seven justices on the Oregon Supreme Court were appointed by Democratic governors. However, justices are required to stand for election against any potential challengers in a statewide race after their appointment. Four of the seven justices have already won elections to retain their seats; three have not yet faced voters.