Attorneys representing former President Donald Trump have filed an appeal after an Illinois circuit court judge ruled that his name should be removed from the state's primary ballot because of violations of the “insurrection clause” in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling, issued by Circuit Court Judge Tracie Porter on Wednesday, agreed with arguments made by Colorado’s Supreme Court when it kicked Trump off the ballot in that state.
Porter's ruling followed a determination by Illinois' State Board of Elections in January that Trump's name should remain on the ballot, but also recommended that a court make the ultimate decision in the case.
Trump's attorneys filed two separate motions in the case, including an appeal of the ruling. They have asked the Illinois Appellate Court to reverse Porter's decision and to reinstate the Board of Elections' ruling in the case.
A second motion was also filed to clarify the terms of Porter's stay in the case. The ruling had been placed on hold pending the expected filing of the appeal, but Trump's attorneys are arguing that the ruling should be stayed until the appeal is decided upon, or until the U.S. Supreme Court makes a ruling in a similar case in Colorado.
Porter issued a revised ruling on Thursday, saying that the decision would be put on hold until a decision is reached by the Appellate Court.
That Colorado case, in which Trump's name was removed from that state's primary ballot on the same grounds, is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Porter said in her ruling that the order would be put on hold if the Supreme Court’s ruling was “inconsistent” with hers.
U.S. & World
The Illinois Republican Party issued the following statement in reaction to Porter's Wednesday ruling.
"As we've stated repeatedly, the Illinois Republican Party believes the people, not activist courts or unelected bureaucrats, should choose who represents them in the White House. This decision to remove President Trump from the ballot without due process is an affront to democracy and limits the voting rights of Illinois citizens," Illinois Republican Party Chairman Don Tracy said.
Get a weekly recap of the latest San Francisco Bay Area housing news. >Sign up for NBC Bay Area’s Housing Deconstructed newsletter.
The former president's spokesperson Steven Cheung also issued a statement.
"Democrat front-groups continue to attempt to interfere in the election and deny President Trump his rightful place on the ballot," the statement read. "Today, an activist Democrat judge in Illinois summarily overruled the state's board of elections and contradicted earlier decisions from dozens of other state and federal jurisdictions. This is an unconstitutional ruling that we will quickly appeal. In the meantime, President Trump remains on the Illinois ballot, is dominating the polls, and will Make America Great Again!”
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Colorado case in early February, and according to legal experts cited by The New York Times and other publications, there was skepticism in the arguments made to keep the former president off the ballot.
The Illinois ruling repeatedly cited findings from the Colorado case, saying that Trump’s actions in the lead-up to, and on the day of Jan. 6, 2021, should be construed as insurrection, making him ineligible to hold the office of president.
Colorado’s Supreme Court concluded “that because President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section Three, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the secretary to list President Trump as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”
Trump’s attorneys have disputed that characterization in appeals, saying that his actions fell well short of the 14th Amendment’s definition of insurrection. They cited tweets the president had sent calling for peace in Washington amid the chaos at the Capitol, but Porter dismissed those remarks as “plausible deniability” of potential crimes.
“This tweet could not possibly have had any other intended purposes besides to fan the flames. The hearing office determines that these calls to peace via social media, coming after an inflammatory tweet are the product of trying to give himself plausible deniability,” the ruling read.
She argued that the Capitol riot’s purpose was “the furtherance of the president’s plan to disrupt the electoral count taking place before the joint meeting of Congress,” and therefore qualified as insurrection under the Constitution.
