Maine’s top court maintains decision to await U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s eligibility

This story may be updated.

Maine’s top court declined to rule on former President Donald Trump’s ballot eligibility, dismissing Secretary of State Shenna Bellows’ appeal of the lower court decision to forgo ruling before the U.S. Supreme Court decides on a similar case out of Colorado. 

Bellows, a Democrat, disqualified Trump from Maine’s Republican primary ballot in December under the “insurrection clause” of the U.S. Constitution because of his involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Maine was the second state to disqualify Trump under this clause after Colorado.

Trump promptly appealed the decision to the Maine Superior Court, which punted the question back to Bellows and ordered her to issue a new ruling once the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the Colorado case. Bellows appealed that decision, requesting that Maine’s top court weigh in sooner to alleviate uncertainty as voters are issued ballots.  

Behind 14th Amendment argument to disqualify Trump: process, reasoning and the role of partisanship

In a unanimous decision issued Wednesday, however, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court dismissed her appeal. Because the trial court’s decision was not final, a decision from the Supreme Judicial Court on the appeal would not fully resolve the matter, the judges wrote. 

So, Maine’s Superior Court ruling stands: Bellows will have 30 days to issue a new ruling modifying, withdrawing or confirming her prior ruling once the U.S. Supreme Court decision is made public. 

“Requiring a final judgment in this situation serves the interests of justice,” the decision read. The judges went on to add that it also “enhances administrative and judicial efficiency; averts our issuance of what would likely be, at least in some part, an advisory opinion; and allows for true and effective decision-making when the matter is ripe.”

Oral arguments for the U.S. Supreme Court case are scheduled for Feb. 8. Maine’s primary election is on March 5, so unless the Supreme Court finds Trump ineligible before then, Maine voters will see his name on the ballot because Bellows stayed her decision pending appeal. Maine already mailed its military and overseas voters their ballots on Jan. 20, so they will see his name regardless.

In a filing from Bellows earlier this week about the permissibility of her appeal, she wrote that waiting for the Supreme Court could extend the decision making process in Maine past primary election day. 

“If that comes to pass, not only will voters have to cast their ballots without certainty as to whether a vote for Mr. Trump will be counted,” Bellows wrote, “but also the Secretary will be in the untenable position of determining how to tabulate election returns where one candidate’s qualification remains in doubt.” 

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court judges wrote that this unpredictability was a key factor in their decision.

“The Secretary of State suggests that there is irreparable harm because a delay in certainty about whether Trump’s name should appear on the primary ballot will result in voter confusion,” the decision read. “This uncertainty is, however, precisely what guides our decision not to undertake immediate appellate review in this particular case.”

The crux of the case in Maine and Colorado — the “insurrection clause” — lies in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office again. 

Bellows received three challenges to Trump’s eligibility, two of which cited the 14th Amendment argument. A bipartisan group of former Maine elected officials filed one of the 14th Amendment challenges, and the Supreme Judicial Court also rejected their appeal of the trial court decision on Wednesday. 

The secretary of state in Maine has removed candidates from ballots before, following the same administrative proceedings as the Trump decision. The ballot challenge process in Maine is distinct from other states in requiring ballot challenges to first be ruled on by the secretary of state before being heard in court. 

However, Bellows is the first in the role to deprive a presidential candidate from a ballot access under the “insurrection clause” — a decision she has since received criticism, threats and an impeachment attempt over. 

Overall, the section has little history of application, and the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on it.