The trial over an effort in Minnesota to keep former President Donald Trump off of the 2024 ballot began Thursday at the state Supreme Court as a similar case continued in Colorado.
The lawsuits in both states allege Trump should be barred from the 2024 ballot for his conduct leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. They argue Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says no one who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after swearing an oath to support and defend the Constitution can hold office.
A group of Minnesota voters, represented by the election reform group Free Speech for People, sued in September to remove Trump from the state ballot under the 14th Amendment provision. The petitioners include former Minnesota Secretary of State Joan Growe and former state Supreme Court Justice Paul H. Anderson.
Conviction might be helpful, but is not actually necessary for this to work.
I’m confused about this as well. Why is this trial happening before one that would bring criminal charges for the insurrection to lock him up? If he lost such a trial, he would be automatically banned from running, right? Or is the required evidence different for this one and that’s why they go with it?
I think it’s about the burden of proof required.
In the states cases it’s just “beyond reasonable doubt” that is required. I.e. would a reasonable person (one with a brain and no particular axe to grind), believe that there is an equal to or greater than 50% possibility that he did commit the crime. If they do then it meets the burden of “beyond reasonable doubt”.
It doesn’t violate his rights because he hasn’t actually been accused of the crime, it is just the courts stating that they think it’s more likely than not that he did commit the crime.
He will probably double down and demand a criminal case, but that doesn’t matter because there’s already one in progress anyway. It also won’t get his name put back on the ballot.
You’re totally correct, but you got a term backwards. You’re thinking “preponderance of evidence”. That’s the one where it’s just “better than even odds”.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is for criminal cases, and is “if there’s any reasonable explanation other than them doing it then they’re innocent”.
Not guilty. Innocent refers to the fact that a defendant could have in no way committed the crime, where as not guilty does not presume innocence, but states that the prosecution has not met it’s burden to prove guilt.
Additionally, for context, the three burdens of proof are:
beyond reasonable doubt - most likely in criminal cases where prosecution has the burden
clear and convincing evidence (typically in custody/family law)
propondedance of evidence - most likely in civil cases where the plaintiff has the burden
And then you can expand to probably cause and reasonable suspicion for warrants or HHS intervention in child abuse cases…