Judge refuses Trump's challenge in Illinois

Judge refuses Trump's challenge in Illinois

A Cook County judge on Wednesday rejected a request for a legal challenge to former President Donald Trump’s placement on Illinois’ March 19 Republican primary ballot.

Lawyers for the former president have filed a motion to halt legal proceedings in Illinois until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on an appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that barred Trump from that state under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. Was disqualified from running for the presidency. For the US Constitution.

The nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the Colorado case on Thursday.

Judge Tracy Porter also rejected a request for expedited court scheduling by those objecting to Trump’s placement on the Illinois ballot, and scheduled a February 16 hearing for an appeal of the Illinois State Elections Board’s January 30 decision, which excluded Trump. The name was retained. On the ballot.

The election board said previous rulings by the Illinois Supreme Court prevented it from considering complex constitutional analyses, such as whether Trump was complicit in insurrection through his role in the deadly riot of January 6, 2021, over the Electoral College count. There was a riot at the US Capitol to try to stop it. The votes that made Democrat Joe Biden president.

Read Also:  Santi Maratia gets millionaire figure to collect money from Independent Football

Instead, the board, in a bipartisan 8-0 vote, rejected the challenge that alleged Trump “knowingly” signed the certification of candidacy stating that he was qualified to be president.

The group of five voters challenging Trump’s candidacy, backed by the group Free Speech for People, is appealing the board’s decision. They allege that the board has misread state Supreme Court rulings that limit its power on constitutional issues and that it has created a new legal standard under which any person who signs a statement of candidacy is entitled to vote. May appear on the ballot, but did not do so “knowing” that they were ineligible.

Trump’s lawyer Adam Merrill had sought a stay on the Illinois court proceedings, citing the US Supreme Court’s opinion on the Colorado case. The Colorado court ruled in a 4-3 decision that Trump had committed “insurrection” and was ineligible to hold the office of president under Section 3 of the post-Civil War constitutional amendment.

Read Also:  New law would protect SNAP vouchers for job seekers

“Every single issue before the U.S. Supreme Court has been briefed and is about to be argued,” Merrill told Judge Porter.

“There is no point in this court being the only court in the country to continue the proceedings here,” he said. “Postponement is really the only decision that makes sense.”

Merrill also said there is no need to consider Trump’s place on the GOP primary ballot under the state’s process for choosing nominating delegates to the Republican National Convention.

Illinois is sending 64 delegates to Milwaukee in July — 13 at-large delegates that go to the winner of the statewide presidential preference vote, and three from each of the state’s 17 congressional districts that are elected directly by voters. Merrill said that if Trump were removed from the presidential preference portion of the ballot he would be ineligible for the 13 at-large delegates, voters could still select the 51 delegates pledged for his nomination.

Read Also:  Trump, the axis of the election

But Carin Lederer, who represents Trump’s challengers, said that no matter what the U.S. Supreme Court rules, it “cannot resolve Illinois state law issues.”

Lederer said, “Despite the Supreme Court’s Section 3 ruling, without this Court’s decision, Donald Trump would have remained on the Illinois ballot because the Board of Elections found that he did not knowingly lie when he said he would run for office.” are eligible.” “Even if the U.S. Supreme Court disqualifies Candidate Trump from the presidency, he will remain on the Illinois ballot absent (state) court intervention.”

Urging the judge to agree to an expedited schedule, Lederer said, “It would be better for the state of Illinois for this case to be resolved before the Illinois Supreme Court as soon as possible. “Otherwise it puts voters at significant risk of casting a vote for an ineligible candidate, whose votes would need to be disregarded, disenfranchising Illinois voters.”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here