LANSING, Mich. (CN) — The majority-Democrat high court of Michigan will allow former President Donald Trump to remain on the state's primary election ballot, per a Wednesday ruling.
The state Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge from anti-Trump litigants — including one stated Republican primary voter — to a state appellate court decision from earlier this month, which found that "it would be improper to decide whether to grant a declaration that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president of the United States at this time."
The latest ruling flies in the face of a decision from the Colorado Supreme Court last week, which held that Trump is disqualified from the ballot due to his involvement with his supporters' attempted occupation of the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021.
That ruling found Trump was disqualified under the 14th Amendment, which states that any former U.S. official cannot "hold any office, civil or military," if they have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the country.
President Joe Biden seemingly agreed, telling press in Wisconsin last Wednesday that he believed Trump had “certainly supported an insurrection.” However, the president said that as to Trump's potential disqualification, he would "let the court make that decision."
"He certainly supported an insurrection," Biden said. "There's no question about it. None. Zero."
Conversely, the Michigan state appellate court's Dec. 14 decision declined to address whether Trump had fomented an insurrection, but ruled that barring him from the primary ballot would be premature.
"At the moment, the only event about to occur is the presidential primary election. But as explained, whether Trump is disqualified is irrelevant to his placement on that particular ballot," the appellate judges ruled.
Trump's eligibility to hold office, the appellate judges decided, was ultimately a question for after the primaries had already been decided. They ruled that even if Trump is eventually disqualified under the 14th Amendment, the state Republican Party should have the right to put his name on the primary ballot now.
"As explained, before Trump’s potential disqualification from holding the office of President could become a relevant concern, he would minimally need to prevail in the primary process," the appellate judges wrote. "That process has yet to begin, and whether Trump prevails in the primary process or becomes the Republican nominee for president are purely hypothetical questions at present."
The appellate court's decision also agreed with earlier rulings from the state's Wayne County Circuit Court and Court of Claims. In those cases, anti-Trump plaintiffs sued the Wayne County Election Commission and Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to try to keep Trump out of the 2024 primary election.
The lower courts held that the county election commission wasn't authorized to rule on Trump's qualifications as a candidate, and that the plaintiffs had presented a political question that wasn't "justiciable" at the time.
In declining to hear an appeal of the appellate decision, the state high court has, at least for the moment, effectively endorsed that court's position on the lower court rulings.
The high court justices wrote in their Wednesday decision that they were "not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court."
Justice Elizabeth Welch issued a dissent from the majority ruling, but only to state that she would have conclusively affirmed the appellate court's decision.
Under Michigan law, "the secretary of state is not legally required to confirm the eligibility of potential presidential primary candidates," Welch wrote. "She lacks the legal authority to remove a legally ineligible candidate from the ballot once their name has been put forward by a political party in compliance with the statutes governing primary elections."
She also waved away the decision from the Colorado Supreme Court which barred Trump from its own state primaries, noting the differences between Michigan and Colorado state election laws. As Welch pointed out, Colorado only allows "qualified" candidates to run in its presidential primary elections, and candidates have to file a statement of intent that lays out how they are qualified, a barrier to entry not required under Michigan law.
"The appellants have identified no analogous provision in the Michigan election law that requires someone seeking the office of president of the United States to attest to their legal qualification to hold the office," Welch wrote.
In Michigan, candidates only have to file an "affidavit of identity," but even this "does not apply to a candidate nominated for the office of president of the United States or vice president of the United States."
"While the wisdom and purpose of such a policy choice is open to debate, that debate rests with the Legislature," Welch wrote.
Chief Justice Elizabeth T. Clement and justices Brian Zahra, David Viviano, Richard Bernstein, Megan Cavanagh and Kyra Bolden round out the state's high court. Their order was not signed and no vote count was given by the 4-3 Democrat majority court.
Follow @djbyrnes1
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
