MAINE'S secretary of state has removed Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot under the US constitution’s insurrection clause, becoming the first election official to take action unilaterally in a decision that has potential Electoral College consequences.
While Maine has just four electoral votes, it is one of two states to split them.
The former president won one of Maine’s electors in 2020, so having him off the ballot there should he emerge as the Republican general election candidate could have major implications in a race that is expected to be narrowly decided.
The decision by Democratic secretary of state Shenna Bellows follows a December ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that removed Trump from the ballot there under Section Three of the 14th Amendment.
READ MORE: Review of the year 2023: What’s happened in UK politics?
Colorado is a Democratic-leaning state which is not expected to be competitive for Republicans in November.
Bellows found that Trump (below) could no longer run for president because his role in the January 6 2021 attack on the US Capitol violated Section Three, which bans from office those who “engaged in insurrection”.
She made the ruling after some state residents, including a bipartisan group of former legislators, challenged his position on the ballot.
In her 34-page decision, Bellow said: “I do not reach this conclusion lightly.
“I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection.”
She acknowledged that the US Supreme Court will probably have the final word but said it was important she did her official duty.
READ MORE: Tony Blair aides wanted asylum camp in Scottish island, records show
Trump’s campaign immediately criticised the ruling.
Spokesman Steven Cheung said: “We are witnessing, in real-time, the attempted theft of an election and the disenfranchisement of the American voter.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel