House Speaker Mike Johnson sharply criticized Democratic lawmakers following the Supreme Court's decision to reject Colorado's move to bar former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. The court's ruling, emphasizing the constitutional roles of Congress over state authorities in such enforcement, has sparked a flurry of legislative responses, notably from Rep. Jamie Raskin, a prominent figure in the House and a former member of the Jan. 6 select committee.
Raskin, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement, is spearheading an initiative to draft federal legislation aimed at disqualifying Trump from future electoral ballots. His efforts, he disclosed to Axios, draw upon previous legislative endeavors co-authored with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in 2022, which sought to empower the Justice Department with the authority to enforce the 14th Amendment's provisions against candidates deemed to have engaged in insurrection.
The proposed bill, Raskin suggests, will undergo significant revisions to align with the Supreme Court's latest judgment. Additionally, it is expected to be accompanied by a resolution formally characterizing the events of January 6 as an insurrection, thereby implicating those involved in a bid to influence their eligibility for federal office. Despite facing a barrage of federal charges relating to the 2020 election, Trump has yet to be charged with insurrection, a point that underscores the contentious nature of these legislative maneuvers.
The Supreme Court's unanimous decision underscores a constitutional boundary that restricts states from invoking Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to disqualify federal office candidates based on insurrection allegations. However, the Court's opinion sparked dissent from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who argued that the majority's stance overly restricts the mechanisms through which Section 3 can be enforced, potentially foreclosing alternative federal measures.
Speaker Johnson's office responded with fervor to the Democratic initiative, emphasizing the foundational principle that the American electorate, not Congress or the judiciary, should determine presidential contenders. This sentiment echoes broader Republican satisfaction with the Court's ruling, as highlighted by Rep. Mike Lawler's approval, signifying a deep partisan divide over the issue.
Raskin, undeterred by the anticipated resistance within a Republican-controlled House, is pressing forward with his legislative proposal. Acknowledging the uphill battle, especially in the absence of moderate Republican allies like former Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, Raskin remains committed to pursuing what he views as a crucial safeguard for the integrity of federal office qualifications.
This legislative effort emerges as a focal point in Raskin's broader agenda, representing a pivotal issue he vows to address should Democrats regain a majority in the House. The unfolding saga underscores the persistent rifts in American politics, as lawmakers grapple with the constitutional and ethical implications of disqualifying candidates from electoral contention.
