Virginia AG Miyares Joins Multi-State Effort Urging Supreme Court to Review Trump Ballot Eligibility

In a pivotal move, Virginia’s Attorney General Jason Miyares has aligned with a coalition of 27 states in petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that barred former President Donald Trump from appearing on Colorado’s 2024 Presidential Primary Election ballot. This coalition, which includes states like Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, and many others, is contesting the Colorado court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Section 3, a post-Civil War provision designed to disqualify federal and state officials who supported the Confederacy from holding office.

The Colorado decision, stemming from Trump’s alleged involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attacks, determined that Trump was ineligible to serve as president under this constitutional clause. The argument pivots on whether the presidency is considered an “office… under the United States” and if Section 3’s disqualification for engaging in insurrection applies to the president. The Colorado Supreme Court, reversing a lower court’s ruling, deemed Trump disqualified under this section.

Attorney General Miyares, echoing the sentiments of the coalition, criticized the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling as an overreach and abuse of power, comparing it to authoritarian practices observed in countries like Cuba. He emphasized the importance of voters having the power to choose their president, viewing the removal of political opponents from ballots as antithetical to democracy.

This case has sparked a broader national debate, with similar challenges to Trump’s eligibility emerging in other states. The Michigan Supreme Court, for instance, allowed Trump on its primary ballot, while the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed an attempt to remove him but left open the possibility of a challenge for the general election ballot. The debate centers on the interpretation and application of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, traditionally associated with the Civil War era but now being invoked in the context of modern political disputes.

As the Supreme Court weighs this significant appeal, the outcomes could have far-reaching implications for the interpretation of the Constitution, the scope of judicial review, and the very nature of democratic processes in the United States​​​​.

Click here to read the brief.