Skip links

Illinois State Judge Bars Trump from Primary Ballot Due to Capitol Insurrection, Stayed Pending Appeal

An Illinois state judge on Wednesday prohibited Donald Trump from featuring on the Illinois Republican presidential primary ballot, citing his involvement in the U.S. Capitol insurrection on January 6, 2021. However, the ruling’s immediate impact has been delayed as an appeal from the former U.S. president is anticipated.

Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter supported Illinois voters who contended that Trump should be ineligible for the state’s March 19 primary ballot and the November 5 general election ballot, asserting a violation of the anti-insurrection clause in the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The resolution of the Illinois case and similar challenges is expected to be influenced by the U.S. Supreme Court, which entertained arguments related to Trump’s ballot eligibility on February 8.

Judge Porter stated that she is postponing her decision due to the expected appeal to Illinois’ appellate courts and a potential ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The advocacy group Free Speech For People, leading the Illinois disqualification effort, hailed the ruling as a “historic victory” in a statement.

A spokesperson for Trump’s campaign, the current frontrunner for the 2024 Republican nomination, denounced the decision, labeling it as “unconstitutional” and promising a swift appeal.

Colorado and Maine had previously removed Trump from their state ballots, citing disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Both decisions are pending Trump’s appeals.

Section 3 prohibits individuals who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. Constitution, or provided aid to its enemies, from holding public office. The Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, led to Trump supporters assaulting police and storming the Capitol in an attempt to thwart the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory.

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing Trump’s challenge to his Colorado disqualification, with justices expressing skepticism about states taking extensive actions that could impact national elections during oral arguments in the case. Source: Reuters

This website uses cookies to improve your web experience.