A new poll demonstrates that a majority of Americans would likely be happy with a Supreme Court decision that would bar former President Donald Trump from some or all state ballots in the upcoming 2024 presidential election.
Two states — Colorado and Maine — have so far deemed Trump ineligible to be listed on their respective Republican Party primary election ballots, based on the insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed earlier this month to hear challenges from Trump to those states’ actions, with oral arguments set to commence on February 8.
A decision from the Court is expected to come soon after that, as a fast response is needed so as not to disrupt the GOP primaries.
It’s unlikely that the Court will rule to bar Trump from any or all ballots — six of the nine justices are conservatives, with three of those justices being picked by the former president himself. But an ABC News/Ipsos poll published on Friday indicates that most Americans would prefer to see an action from the Court that would allow for Trump to be barred in at least some manner.
According to the poll, a plurality of Americans — 49 percent — back the actions taken by officials in Colorado and Maine to bar Trump from appearing on the ballot. Forty-six percent of Americans oppose those actions.
On what the Supreme Court should do, however, 30 percent believe the Court should rule to remove Trump from every ballot in the country, deeming him an insurrectionist under the terms of the 14th Amendment. Another 26 percent believe the Court should rule that his eligibility be decided on a state-by-state basis.
Taken together, the polling shows that 56 percent of voters would be fine with the Court rendering a decision blocking him from either some or all ballots across the country. Only 39 percent of respondents in the poll said the Supreme Court should rule that Trump is eligible for every ballot in the United States.
As the Court hears arguments from all parties involved, including receiving amicus briefs from others either in support of or opposing efforts to deny him ballot access, other states — including Alaska and Illinois — are currently pondering whether they, too, should deem Trump ineligible to run, making the Court’s decision all the more important to expediently render.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that no person who has previously held a governmental position and has “previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States” can hold office ever again if they’ve “engaged in insurrection” or “given aid or comfort” to those who have, unless two-thirds of Congress votes to allow them to do so. The clause doesn’t require a person be found guilty of being an insurrectionist or otherwise have that designation given to them, and indeed, courts have, in the past, disqualified candidates when citizens have challenged their eligibility to run for office under that clause.
Trump arguably fits the bill, in many people’s minds, of someone who should be denied access to the presidential ballot based on his actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021, when a mob of his loyalists, spurred on by an incendiary speech he had given to them that morning, violently attacked the U.S. Capitol building. Trump spent several hours refusing to call the mob off, and even posted tweets online that seemed to egg them on. He also used the opportunity to try to compel lawmakers in Congress to agree to illegitimately overturn the 2020 presidential election, which he had indubitably lost to President Joe Biden.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.