Desperate Democrats have initiated a new strategy to “protect democracy” following the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in favor of President Donald Trump, which halted attempts to exclude him from the 2024 ballots.
According to Slay News, all nine justices on the SCOTUS ruled that Democrats cannot manipulate the election by utilizing the “insurrection” clause of the 14th Amendment to eliminate Trump’s name from state ballots. In response to the verdict, Democrats have started to consider alternative tactics to prevent voters from selecting Trump over Joe Biden.
Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) mentioned that he is currently drafting a bill that would establish a process to disqualify candidates. Raskin expressed his satisfaction that the Supreme Court did not dispute the Colorado court’s determination that Trump was involved in an “insurrection.”
Instead, the Supreme Court opposed Colorado’s argument, asserting that it is Congress, not the states, that holds the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal officials and candidates.
“[T]he Supreme Court punted and said, it’s up to Congress,” Raskin said on CNN.
The decision maintained the possibility for states to implement Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against their own officials and candidates.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW), the progressive organization that initiated the legal action against Trump in Colorado, has already been initiating legal proceedings to achieve this. Regarding federal officials, it concluded that the responsibility for enforcement lies with Congress.
“I am working with a number of my colleagues, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell to revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed Insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” Raskin said Monday.
Democrat Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) also informed Politico on Monday that, upon initial review, it does not seem that the Court has indicated a feasible way to implement Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without the enactment of a law detailing the necessary procedures.
Prior to the decision, certain senior Democrats hinted in statements to The Atlantic that they would not validate a Trump win on Jan. 6, 2025, if the Supreme Court did not offer clear guidance on whether he had engaged in an “insurrection.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday established limits on how Congress can enforce Section 3, stipulating that it must be enforced through legislation that demonstrates “congruence and proportionality” to the behavior in question. Derek Muller, a professor of law at Notre Dame and an expert in election law, cautions that the possibility of rejecting certification still exists.
