Anti-Trump activists are working overtime to prevent his name from appearing on ballots in several states next year, including Colorado and Michigan.
According to Fox News, those efforts might have taken an early death blow thanks to a ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court last week that dismissed the legal attempt to keep Trump off the ballot in that particular state.
The attempt to keep his name off of the ballots in as many states as possible is based on language in the Disqualifications Clause, or Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
That particular section bars people from holding office if they've "engaged in insurrection or rebellion," with the activists using the Jan. 6 Capitol protests as grounds for that argument.
But Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson shot down the idea last week, making it clear that such language doesn't apply in this situation.
"There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office," Hudson said.
The Minnesota Supreme Court--dominated by Democrats 6-1--tactically retreated in the Democrats' illegal campaign to kick Trump off the ballot.
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) November 8, 2023
Even before Minnesota's ruling, a federal judge in New Hampshire also quashed the possibility of it happening there.
Many believe the two decisions to end the attempt to keep Trump off the ballots on a state level have set a precedent that Trump's lawyers can deploy in similar cases across the country.
Fox News noted:
A source familiar with the decisions and proceedings told Fox News Digital the challenges being rejected "sets precedent," which will make it "harder and harder to keep Trump off the ballot" in other states.
Andy McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, admitted that precedent has been set, but stopped short of calling it "bulletproof" for the former president and his legal defense team.
"It gets to the concept known in the law as persuasive authority. The law distinguishes between binding authority in a jurisdiction and persuasive authority, which means if you’re going to go against it, you better have a good reason or a persuasive argument for why you’re going to do it," McCarthy said during a recent interview.
He added, "The more current law you get for the proposition that it is not a basis to remove someone, the harder it is for judges to break ground and go the other way, but we shouldn’t pretend that it is bulletproof."
Only time will tell if the activists gain any further ground, but it doesn't appear as if Trump and his campaign are too worried about it.
It's important to share the news to spread the truth. Most people won't.