The State Ballot Law Commission has denied a voter’s attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot in Massachusetts, stating that it lacks jurisdiction over the issues raised. In a significant development, the court delivered its decision on Monday afternoon, just a day before the highly anticipated New Hampshire primary.
Last week, the State Ballot Law Commission conducted a hearing that lasted approximately 20 minutes. During the hearing, the three members of the commission deliberated on whether they possess the authority to remove a candidate from the ballot. “The objection’s relation to the commission’s jurisdiction is still under consideration,” stated Commission Chairman Francis Crimmons.
An attorney representing the nine voters who have lodged the objection stated that, according to them, the commission possesses the authority to decide whether Trump should be included on the ballot. However, according to a lawyer representing Trump, they currently deny any involvement. According to him, the state Republican Party has the authority to include any candidate of its choice on the primary ballot.
“According to Trump attorney Marc Salinas, the position is that once the state committee places you on the ballot, the Secretary of State is obligated to include you on the ballot, regardless of qualification,” Salinas stated.
According to legal experts, that statement is factually inaccurate. “The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has clarified that only candidates who meet the eligibility requirements can be listed on a Massachusetts ballot,” stated Shannon Liss-Riordan, the attorney representing the voters.
Attorneys representing the voters have put forth the argument that, according to the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, Trump is ineligible due to his alleged involvement in the insurrection that took place on January 6, 2021.
Check more: Texas man shoots four other relatives and then kills himself, along with his 8-year-old niece!
A recent decision in Massachusetts highlighted an interesting aspect of the electoral process. According to the court, the names of presidential candidates on the ballot are merely symbolic and do not directly determine the outcome of the election. This ruling sheds light on the role of these candidates as placeholders rather than actual contenders. “The group of presidential electors who have made commitments to support specific candidates.”
A statement from the MassGOP commended the Massachusetts Ballot Commission for its recent decision to grant voters the opportunity to select their preferred presidential nominee. “The attempt to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot was seen as a threat to our democratic system.”
A written statement from Liss-Riordan on Monday stated that they are currently preparing their appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. “The decision made by the state ballot commission today was not a ruling on the merits.” It is our view that the commission made a mistake in its interpretation of Massachusetts election laws by stating that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on this dispute.
Colorado and Maine have also disqualified Trump from their primaries for similar reasons. The U.S. Supreme Court has announced that oral arguments in the Colorado case will be heard on Feb. 8. The presidential primary in Massachusetts is set to take place on March 5.
Leave a Reply