arguments that he should be excluded due to his conduct related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol
Former President Donald Trump
Michigan Supreme Court
refused to reconsider a mid-December decision by a three-judge state Court of Appeals panel
Former President Donald Trump will remain a listed candidate in the 2024 primary ballot in Michigan, despite arguments that he should be excluded due to his conduct related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. The Michigan Supreme Court found that it is not persuaded that the present questions should be reviewed and refused to reconsider a mid-December decision by a three-judge state Court of Appeals panel. If Trump becomes the Republican nominee, his clients will again challenge his eligibility for the general election ballot in November.
The Michigan Supreme Court rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot based on the US Constitution’s insurrectionist ban.
The case raised a political question that shouldn’t be decided in the courts, the Michigan Court of Appeals said.
Accuracy
The Michigan lawsuit never reached a trial and was dismissed early on in the process.
Plaintiffs looking to keep the former president from the ballot were hoping to appeal a lower court ruling from earlier this month, which ruled that whose who appear on a state's primary ballot is determined by political parties and the candidates themselves.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said she is gratified by the ruling and it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to provide further clarity.
Deception
(50%)
The article contains several examples of deception. Firstly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'insurrectionist ban' and 'risk of being rigged and stolen' to create a sense of urgency and fear in the reader. This is an attempt to manipulate the reader's emotions rather than presenting factual information. Secondly, the article quotes Trump denouncing the decision as a 'pathetic gambit' without providing any evidence or context for this claim. This is an example of emotional manipulation and an attempt to discredit the decision without providing any reasoning. Thirdly, the article mentions that the Michigan lawsuit never reached a trial and was dismissed early on in the process. However, it does not provide any details about why the case was dismissed or what evidence was presented. This is an example of selective reporting and an attempt to hide information that may contradict the author's narrative. Finally, the article quotes one of the Michigan justices stating that January 6 was not an insurrection, but this statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the article. This is an example of false claims and an attempt to mislead the reader.
The article quotes Trump denouncing the decision as a 'pathetic gambit' without providing any evidence or context for this claim.
The author uses sensationalist language such as 'insurrectionist ban' and 'risk of being rigged and stolen' to create a sense of urgency and fear in the reader.
The Michigan lawsuit never reached a trial and was dismissed early on in the process. However, it does not provide any details about why the case was dismissed or what evidence was presented.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Marshall Cohen has a conflict of interest on the topic of the January 6 Capitol riot as he is a member of Free Speech For People, an organization that advocates for election integrity and campaign finance reform.
Marshall Cohen is a member of Free Speech For People, an organization that advocates for election integrity and campaign finance reform.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Marshall Cohen has a conflict of interest on the topic of the January 6 Capitol riot as he is a member of Free Speech For People, an organization that advocates for election integrity and transparency.
Marshall Cohen is a member of Free Speech For People, an organization that advocates for election integrity and transparency.
The Michigan Supreme Court said it will not weigh in on whether former President Donald Trump should be denied access to the state's ballot in 2024
Plaintiffs looking to keep the former president from the ballot were hoping to appeal a lower court ruling from earlier this month, which ruled that whose who appear on a state's primary ballot is determined by political parties and the candidates themselves.
The Michigan Supreme Court has declined to hear a case arguing that former President Donald Trump should be excluded from the state's primary ballot, meaning the front-runner for the GOP nomination will remain a listed candidate.
Another central issue in a spate of court cases is whether it would be within state powers, or only the power of Congress, to bar a candidate over such an issue.
Michigan’s highest state court said it is 'not persuaded that the present questions should be reviewed by this court.'
It refused to reconsider a mid-December decision by a three-judge state Court of Appeals panel.
That ruling affirmed a lower court ruling that neither the courts nor Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson can bar former Trump from being a candidate in Michigan’s Feb. 27 Republican primary.
Justice Elizabeth Welch, a Democratic nominee, dissented, citing the Colorado decision, among other issues.
Welch said she agrees with the Michigan Court of Appeals that under the wording of state law, the secretary of state does not have the authority to exclude from the ballot a prominent candidate such as Trump, whose name has been put forward by a political party, regardless of whether he is ineligible under the U.S. Constitution.
However, 'political parties might have an obligation to ensure that proposed presidential primary candidates are eligible'
Michigan’s lower courts, along with courts in some other states, have found that the question of whether Trump is disqualified under Section 3 is one for Congress - at least in terms of a primary election - and not the state’s courts or election officials to decide.
But the Colorado Supreme Court's split decision, which is on hold pending the question of whether the U.S. Supreme Court will settle the matter, states that there is nothing in the 14th Amendment, which was written in response to the Civil War, that requires Congress, rather than a state, to make that determination, only that the U.S. House and Senate can lift any disqualification if they so choose.
And the Colorado opinion noted that its state law outlines a duty to 'exclude constitutionally disqualified candidates'
in a process run through its courts, ahead of any election, including a primary.
Michigan law includes no similar provision.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said she is gratified by the ruling and it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to provide further clarity.
We clearly stated months ago that, when it comes to ballot access for candidates in a presidential primary, my authority is limited to ensuring that any individuals 'generally advocated by the national news media to be potential presidential candidates'
We followed that law.
Accuracy
The argument over whether Trump is an eligible candidate for president centers on whether his conduct related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol should be considered engaging in insurrection.
Michigan's highest state court said it is 'not persuaded that the present questions should be reviewed by this court.'
The case raised a political question that shouldn't be decided in the courts, the Michigan Court of Appeals said.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(70%)
The article contains a statement that the Michigan Supreme Court has declined to hear a case arguing that former President Donald Trump should be excluded from the state's primary ballot. This statement is an example of political bias as it reflects the author's opinion on the matter and not just presenting facts. The author also uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by stating that the argument over whether Trump is an eligible candidate for president centers on whether his conduct related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol should be considered engaging in insurrection.
The argument over whether Trump is an eligible candidate for president centers on whether his conduct related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol should be considered engaging in insurrection.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article reports on the Michigan Supreme Court's decision to keep Donald Trump on the ballot for the 2024 presidential primary. The court rejected an argument that Trump was ineligible to run due to his involvement in the January 6th insurrection. The article also mentions Jocelyn Benson, the Secretary of State of Michigan who has been a vocal critic of Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. This suggests that there may be a conflict of interest between Benson and Trump, as she has taken a public stance against him.
The court rejected an argument that Trump was ineligible to run due to his involvement in the January 6th insurrection.
