On January 30, the Illinois State Board of Elections voted unanimously to keep former President Donald Trump on the ballot. The Board has four Democrats and four Republicans. The Board said it does not feel it has the authority to reject a candidate from a primary ballot if the objection is based on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section Three. The objectors say they will now file a lawsuit in state court to keep Trump off.
On January 30, President Joe Biden said “It’s fine” if former President Donald Trump is allowed on all ballots in 2024. See this story.
This is the second time Biden has made a statement in favor of ballot access. On October 2, 2023, he had said that No Labels has a right to be on the ballot.
On January 29, Justice Frank M. Gaziano of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected a challenge to the Trump ballot listing in the Massachusetts Republican presidential primary. On January 30, the objectors asked the full court to overrule Gaziano’s opinion.
On January 30, Tennessee filed its brief in Darnell v Hargett, m.d., 3:23cv-1266. This is the Libertarian Party case that challenges the Tennessee petition requirement for a group to become a qualified party. Here is the state’s brief. It doesn’t even mention the Sixth Circuit decision Graveline v Benson, 992 F.3d 524 (2021), in which Michigan’s petition requirement of 30,000 signatures for a statewide independent candidate was struck down, on the grounds that it was obviously more difficult than necessary for any state interest, because it had only been used twice since it was created in 1988.
Tennessee is also in the Sixth Circuit, and Tennessee’s party petition hasn’t been used since 1968. It requires 43,498 signatures.
On January 29, Professor Seth Barrett Tillman asked the U.S. Supreme Court for 15 minutes of argument time in Trump v Anderson, the U.S. Supreme Court ballot access case. It is extremely rare for an amicus (other than the Solicitor General) to be allowed to participate in oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Tillman acknowledges this. But he says the briefs for both sides are failing to understand that there is a difference between “Office under the United States” and being an “Officer of the United States.” He has studied these phrases for a decade, and he feels this is an important issue and that he can help the court. Here is his filing.
