The Supreme Court in Michigan United States, on Wednesday rejected an appeal from a group of voters in the state who challenged former President Donald Trump’s candidacy for the presidency under the Constitution’s “insurrection clause.”
The voters prayed the court for disqualification of Trump under the provision in the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding office if they have previously sworn an oath to the United States.
However, the Michigan ruling has allowed Trump to remain on the ballot in contrast to a decision by Colorado’s apex court last week to disqualify him under the same constitutional provision.
- Europe Erupts Over Rising Fuel Prices as Cities Battles Soaring Cost of Living and Economic Hardship
Rising fuel prices, soaring household expenses and dissatisfaction with public… - Niger Republic Bans Petrol, Diesel Exports as Fuel Shortages Deepen, Prioritises Local Consumers
The Republic of Niger has prohibited the export of premium…
According to CBS, in a brief order, the state high court denied a request from four voters to review a Michigan Court of Appeals decision that allowed Trump to remain on the Republican presidential primary ballot.
The Michigan Supreme Court, composed of seven justices, said it is “not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court.” The order was not signed, and a vote count was not noted.
One justice, Elizabeth Welch, dissented and wrote the only legal issue properly before the state supreme court is whether the lower courts erred in finding the Michigan secretary of state lacks the authority to exclude Trump’s name from the presidential primary ballot.
Welch wrote that she agreed with the Court of Appeals that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson must place Trump on the primary ballot regardless of whether he is disqualified from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, known as the “insurrection clause.”
Under Michigan law, Welch wrote, “The secretary of state is not legally required to confirm the eligibility of potential presidential primary candidates.
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.”
