Former President Donald Trump has waded into efforts to prevent him from appearing on Oregon’s presidential primary ballot, offering a raft of arguments for why his name must appear alongside other GOP candidates when Republicans vote in May.
At issue is whether Trump should be banned from seeking office because of his role in spurring the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol — a deadly event aimed at disrupting the U.S House from certifying the 2020 presidential election. It’s a question that other states have already begun answering, with differing results.
Attorneys with the group Free Speech For People filed suit last month on behalf of five Oregon voters, urging the Oregon Supreme Court to rule that Trump’s actions amounted to an “insurrection” disqualifying him from running for president. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars people from holding office if they “engaged in insurrection.”
Trump and his attorneys have successfully defended themselves against similar efforts in Michiganand Minnesota. But they failed in two: The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Trump’s actions disqualify him from that state’s presidential primary, and the Maine secretary of statetook him off the ballot last week.
The ultimate question of whether Trump is disqualified under the insurrection clause will fall to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, the former president has brought his arguments to Oregon.
In a lengthy filing on Friday, Trump offers seven reasons why he must appear on Oregon’s ballot. Among them: that the five plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that the Constitution’s insurrection clause doesn’t apply to the office of president, and that only Congress can enforce the clause. Trump also argues the Jan. 6 attack did not constitute an “insurrection.”
“There is a crucial difference between insurrections and political riots — even riots that disrupt government processes,” the filing reads.
In the run up to the attack, Trump repeatedly claimed the 2020 presidential election was being stolen from him, and worked to create slates of invalid electors he hoped would help him claim swing states won by President Joe Biden. He also urged his supporters to come to Washington, D.C., and “fight like hell” on the day of the certification. He argues his words amounted to free speech, and that he did not participate in any violent acts.
“On January 6, President Trump gave an impassioned speech to a large crowd gathered in Washington in support of his arguments that he should be certified the election winner,” Trump’s filing says. “Relators apparently contend that this speech amounted to some sort of instruction to engage in violence or crimes.”
The former president also agrees with the conclusion of Oregon’s Democratic secretary of state. Based on advice from the Oregon Department of Justice, LaVonne Griffin-Valade announced Nov. 30 that she did not have authority to prevent Trump from the primary ballot.
That decision had nothing to do with the substance of the 14th Amendment or Trump’s actions. Instead, Griffin-Valade said she was constrained by state statute.
Unlike other political contests, in which she must consider whether candidates actually qualify for the office they are seeking, Griffin-Valade said presidential primaries present a special case. She is required to place candidates on the ballot if they either file a valid nominating petition, or if she determines that a candidate “is generally advocated or is recognized in national news media.” Trump falls under the second group.
“Oregon law does not give me the authority to determine the qualifications of candidates in a presidential primary,” Griffin-Valade said in November. “I will follow our usual process and expect to put Donald Trump on the primary ballot unless a court directs me otherwise.”
Free Speech For People disagrees. It argues that, as a matter of course, presidential candidates in Oregon file a form that attests they qualify for the office. That gives Griffin-Valade latitude to disqualify Trump, the suit says.
When the Oregon Supreme Court will take up the matter isn’t clear. Oral arguments in the case have not been set.
But regardless of the court’s opinion, Griffin-Valade’s conclusion about Trump’s candidacy could be different if he secures the Republican nomination this year. The prospect of having the former president on the November general election ballot would require a new round of scrutiny by the secretary.
“When the general election comes,” Griffin-Valade said in November, “we’ll follow the law and be completely transparent with our reasoning.”
Copyright 2024 Oregon Public Broadcasting. To see more, visit Oregon Public Broadcasting.
