Shenna Bellows is suddenly famous, a registered Democrat, non-lawyer, former ACLU activist selected by Maine’s Democrat legislature to be Secretary of State. Within her purview is candidate eligibility. She just ruled Maine’s 1,039,517 registered voters cannot vote for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Does that end the discussion? Hardly.
Based on a half-day hearing, “u-tube” videos, and a law professor’s brief, she finds Trump “not qualified” to be a candidate, but an “insurrectionist” barred by Section 3, 14th Amendment.
Where does one start? This pretense to “legal authority” is a bare-knuckled attempt to block an opposing presidential contender from ballot status. It is a farce, makes a mockery of the democratic process and fair, impartial administration of elections under Maine’s Title 21-A.
The sheer political transparency, venting of spleen, personal animus toward Trump by this officer should disqualify her from running the State’s 2024 elections, if not her post. She mocks the law.
Any lawyer in her inner circle – including the Governor, Attorney General, and state legislators could have told her this will look like a cheap trick, no legal chance of holding up, and undermines trust in Maine’s electoral process, fair play, things Mainers expect of their officials.
If any tried, they failed, a mark against them and this self-absorbed state officer. In after-the-fact interviews, she virtually beams, is positively giddy, seems to bask in her newfound fame.
As someone who grew up in Maine, lives here now, has family and friends all over the state, knows the value of trust and fairness, spent time with oldline Republicans and Democrats, Margaret Chase Smith, Ed Muskie, Bill Cohen, Susan Collins, this makes me look at my boots.
Here are the arguments against this anti-democratic move, which any thoughtful Democrat or Republican – if Ms. Bellows speaks with Republicans – might have brought to her attention.
First, even if you hate Donald Trump – and he has created an A-frame of sentiment – he is entitled to all the rights of citizenship, due process, equal protection, confronting his accusers, and more deference as a leading challenger to Ms. Bellow’s obvious favorite, Mr. Biden.
What does that mean? It means no state ruling – particularly on presidential eligibility – can proceed without a dispositive ruling on whether Mr. Trump’s speech on January 6th was part of an “insurrection.” That determination lies not at the state level, but with the US Supreme Court.
Moreover, this preemptive gut punch to democracy imagines the rest of the 14th Amendment, its history and Section 1, endowing citizens with “rights and immunities,” is somehow irrelevant.
They are not irrelevant. Historically, Section 3 – which mentions “insurrection” – was specifically inserted to prevent Confederates who killed 620,000 Americans in the Civil War from running after a pardon. It had specific origin and meaning, was never a meant as a partisan sword.
To that point, most legal scholars believe Trump’s speech on January 6th was, if provocative, hardly an “insurrection.” It is protected “political speech” under 1st Amendment caselaw.
If that speech is viewed as “insurrection,” political speech is dead. That cannot be.
In short, for one state partisan to conclude she will “say what the law is,” decide who cannot run for president, put on Supreme Court robes, is comic, arrogant, impertinent, and ignorant.
What this ruling betrays is venality and partisan opportunism, what happens when a state labors under one-party rule, is dominated. Bluntly, she disrespects both the judiciary and democracy.
In Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Laos, half the dark globe, things like this do happen. Fair elections are thrown by blocking candidates. As Assistant Secretary of State to Colin Powell, I saw it happen often, but never here; preempting democracy does not work here.
What else makes this cringe-worthy, partisan nonsense? For starters, Maine’s election laws do not envision – nor does legislative history – a Secretary of State taking it on herself to bump candidates, except for failure to get sufficient signatures, inventing reasons to call the shots.
Imagine if that were true, if state appointees or judges could shape reasons to remove candidates from elections, forcing long legal battles to restore a candidacy. Our republic would end.
You would have all manner of partisan claims for candidate disqualification, say dementia or stroke, mental or physical fitness, lies and unproven crimes. That was never what our founders – or the 14th Amendment’s drafters – envisioned. Never.
Now add a few more facts. Last month, congressional investigators found the January 6th investigating committee – run by Democrats – hid and destroyed films, exculpatory evidence.
During a court trial, so-called Brady or Jenks evidence, film, documents, photos that help defendants must be produced. We now know such evidence existed and was destroyed. A parallel case, one equally important for January 6th culpability, is also at the High Court.
Finally, we know – just common sense – if this kind of tomfoolery, a single state official bouncing who she dislikes, lots of press, were allowed, fair elections end. We may not like those who qualify to run, those who one party selects, but democracy is like that – about voting, not preemptive strikes. That, well, that is just hot air in the bellows.
Robert Charles is a former Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell, former Reagan and Bush 41 White House staffer, attorney, and naval intelligence officer (USNR). He wrote “Narcotics and Terrorism” (2003), “Eagles and Evergreens” (2018), and is National Spokesman for AMAC.
