by The US high court “badly erred” in ruling in Colorado that it was wrong to seek to remove Donald Trump from the ballot for inciting the Jan. 6 uprising, a leading historian and analyst of presidential politics said.
Related:Trump was wrongly removed from the Colorado ballot, the US supreme court rules
The court handed down its unanimous ruling on Monday, a day before Colorado became one of 16 states and one US territory to hold a Super Tuesday primary.
“The supreme court made a mistake based poorly on our amicus brief and our review of history, in holding that a candidate for federal office can only be disqualified by an act of Congress,” said Allan Lichtman, speaking to reporters with three other historians who signed the arguing that Trump should be removed.
Lichtman is a professor at American University in Washington DC who has correctly predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1984, using a “keys to the White House” system he co-invented.
With Trump closing in on the Republican nomination, Lichtman recently said Joe Biden had five keys to Trump’s three, and five to pay.
Most analysts and pollsters give Trump the upper hand, despite the fact that he faces 91 criminal charges (17 for election tampering, 40 for keeping classified documents and 34 for money payments to an adult film star) and suffering multi-million dollar penalties in civil suits. his business dealings and rape allegation a judge called “substantially true”.
But with Colorado’s attempt to remove Trump from the ballot rejected by the supreme court – ensuring the same fate as efforts in Maine and Illinois – he is on the verge of clinching the Republican nomination and possibly returning to office.
The Colorado case attracted many amicus briefs. Lichtman and 24 other historians argued that Trump should be removed from the ballot under section three of the 14th amendment, which was approved in 1868 to remove former Confederates from office.
“For historians,” the brief said, “contemporary evidence from the decision makers who sponsored, supported, and voted for the 14th amendment shows that … decision makers created a third department to cover the president and to create a lasting check on rebellion, binding it. without further action by Congress.”
On Monday the supreme court disagreed, saying in an unsigned opinion: “We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or seeking state office. But states have no power under the constitution to enforce article three with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency.”
Congress, said the six conservatives and three liberals, had a duty to enact disqualification procedures.
Lichtman spoke to reporters with three other signatories to the amicus brief: Manisha Sinha, of the University of Connecticut; Brooks D Simpson from Arizona State University; and Orville Vernon Burton, from the University of Illinois.
Lichtman said the guidance was “conclusively proven [that] not one of the thousands of ex-Confederates disqualified under section three of the 14th amendment was disqualified by an Act of Congress. They were automatically disqualified, like Jefferson Davis himself [the former Confederate president] recognized in his trial and both judges agreed in the trial.”
Lichtman said he recognized some good in the Colorado ruling. First, the court “did not accept Trump’s argument that section three of the 14th amendment excluded the presidency” as an office subject to sanction.
“Secondly, the supreme court, in line with our brief, did not accept the argument that section three only applied to ex-Confederates – clearly in this ruling. [the court] indicates that it applies indefinitely.
“So these positive aspects [warn] insurrectionists in the future you do not necessarily become free of Scots. The states can disqualify you if you try to run for state office, and you can be disqualified from running for federal office by an act of Congress.”
Like Lichtman, Sinha noted that the four women on the court — liberals Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson and conservative Amy Coney Barrett — issued something of a rebuke to the five men, saying they had gone too far. saying one. Congress could disqualify a candidate for federal office.
But Sinha said the ruling left her “a little more pessimistic”. Speaking ironically, she said: “I congratulate the conservatives for the great respect they have shown for states’ rights which they have always shown in their decisions but strangely enough in this particular decision they upheld the federal and national authority of the 14th amendment . So that was out of character.”
Sinha, the liberals who agreed there shouldn’t be a “patchwork” state-based disqualification system, said they “don’t seem to understand that if the supreme court made a decision disqualifying Trump that would have a national effect, it would have a national effect . It is not meant that every state gets to decide. The decision as it stands now has a national effect: Trump cannot be barred from any state.
Trump appointed three aides to a court critic he accused of acting in his favor: quickly dismissing Colorado’s challenge but moving slowly on Trump’s demand for blanket immunity in his federal election retaliation case.
Related: Biden says in a rare print interview that he will beat Trump but polls say otherwise
In that case, the court said last week it would hear arguments on a matter that a federal appeals court ruled against Trump. The trial will now take place close to or before election day in November, giving Trump a chance to dismiss the charges if he is returned to power.
Sinha said: “I think so [the court] quick way[s] all the decisions in all the cases that let Trump off the hook and they are slowly moving on all the decisions that don’t let Trump off the hook.
“This is prime season and I think it will have a political impact. Trump is going to seal the deal” with the Colorado decision.
Simpson said he was less disappointed by the decision, because it shows “certain ways in which Trump remains vulnerable”, including not addressing the question of whether he incited a rebellion.
“The crisis is still there,” Simpson said, “and anyone who sees this as a definitive ruling that decides everything is sorely mistaken.”
