Maine court puts Trump ballot ban decision on hold

So just a short time ago, we got word that a judge in Maine is delaying the decision on whether to remove former President Trump from the state's ballot until the Supreme Court weighs in on the similar case that's playing out with regard to Colorado. Now remember last month, Maine's Democratic Secretary of State joined Colorado in dropping  the former president from the state ballot because they say that he engaged in an insurrection, something that in all of those 91 counts that we have seen, he has never been charged with. Watch. No Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but no presidential candidate has ever engaged in  insurrection. Okay, with that we bring in former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andy McCarthy, Socially Keeda USA contributor.

Andy, it was good to have you with us. So this has been stayed, much like the Colorado situation was stayed. They are waiting in these state courts for the Supreme Court to weigh in on this. What's your take? Well, I think it's a very good  development because it not only increases the chance that the Supreme Court will, you know, rapidly issue a decision that will be decisive, which is what we hope. I think that, you know, when multiple states do this, and then like Maine comes out and says, we're going to wait on the Supreme Court. That's a big encouragement to the court to decide  this. And when I say that, what I mean, Martha, is we've talked before about the fact that this could actually be two phases of chaos, because there could be one issue about access to the ballot with respect to the primaries, and then access to the ballot with respect to the general  election. So if you let this go, you let every state make their own ad hoc rules, and then we have two waves of litigation, we're going to invite even more chaos than we've already invited from the legal system into the electoral politics of 2024. So you have two big issues that it  looks like the court is grappling with. One is whether or not a state can independently decide that a crime has been committed and taken an insurrection in this case, which as we said, he hasn't been charged with, and take him off the ballot. The other is this question of  presidential immunity. Give us a sense of how you think the court is going to manage all of this.

And maybe while you're answering this, we can take a look at the very complex Trump campaign courtroom calendar, Andy. Yes. Well, I think, Martha, what the court's going to want to stay away from a million  miles away from is, was there an insurrection? And did Trump participate in it? So the issues really, I think, are going to come down to, does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment apply to presidents, which I think is a profound question. And then secondly, if it does, what procedurally has to be done in order to establish whether the insurrection trigger  applies? I would also add a third thing into the mix, just as long as Democrats are raising this. The 14th Amendment, Section 3, is not a limitation on the public. It's a limitation on the officeholder.

So it says that no person shall be a president or a senator or representative,  you know the list. It doesn't say that no person shall be elected. And I don't mean to be persnickety about this, but you know, in 2000, Mel Carnahan was elected to the Senate when he was dead.

That's right. Now, Article 1 of the Constitution lays out what the qualifications are for the Senate,  like you have to be over 30 years old, etc. I didn't hear anyone saying at the time that he needed to be taken off the ballot. Well, maybe they said it at the time, certainly courts didn't entertain it.

They didn't say he needed to be taken off the ballot because  the qualification included being alive in addition to, you know, checking the other boxes. I just think it's very peculiar. It wouldn't surprise me if the Supreme Court ultimately said, you know, get back to us when Trump gets elected, and then we can sort out whether he is a person who's qualified to take the office.

It's a creative effort,  no doubt. And we'll see what the court decides to do with it. Andy, thank you very much. We're keeping you very busy these days, and we'll see you soon.

Thank you so much.