“Fascist Theocracy Here We Come!”: Internet Reacts to Minnesota Supreme Court’s Dismissal of Efforts to Block Trump From Primary Ballot

Michelle MeyerNov 13, 2023

Minute Read

The Minnesota Supreme Court has dismissed an attempt to prevent former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s primary ballot in 2024.

The Controversial Decision

The controversial decision came after a group of voters filed a petition aiming to bar Trump from running in the 2024 GOP primary and the general election. They argued that the now-criminal defendant’s alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 election violated the insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment, which says that anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after pledging an oath to support and defend the Constitution cannot hold office. It also says that those who assisted others in engaging in insurrection are similarly banned.

No State Statute

The ruling said: “There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot or sending delegates to the national convention supporting a candidate who is ineligible to hold office.”

The General Election Ballot

The court didn’t say whether or not Trump is eligible to be on the general election ballot in this particular ruling, a decision that leaves room for the possibility of further challenges to his eligibility if he wins the GOP nomination.

Free Speech for People

Editorial credit: Christopher Penler/Shutterstock.

Free Speech for People, the organization representing the group of Minnesota voters, expressed disappointment with the court’s decision. Despite this frustration, Ron Fein – the organization’s legal director – noted that the Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged that the issue of Trump’s disqualification may be “resolved at a later stage.”

Resolved at a Later Stage

Fein said: “However, the Minnesota Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the question of Donald Trump’s disqualification for engaging in insurrection against the U.S. Constitution may be resolved at a later stage.”

A Concurrent Case

Editorial credit: Potashev Aleksandr / Shutterstock.

Fein also talked about how the decision doesn’t hold any legal binding outside of Minnesota. Moreover, the group is concurrently involved in a separate challenge to Trump’s eligibility in Michigan, with arguments set to be heard before a state judge soon.

Various Similar Challenges

Similar challenges to Trump’s eligibility are occurring across the country. Top election officials in Arizona, New Hampshire, and other locations are considering the insurrection clause as they prepare for the Republican presidential primaries. Trump labeled the challenges “nonsense” and “election interference.”

Trump Campaign’s Response

Following the Minnesota ruling, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign – Steven Cheung – applauded the decision, describing it as “further validation of the Trump campaign’s consistent argument that the 14th Amendment ballot challenges are nothing more than strategic, unconstitutional attempts to interfere with the election.”

A Bad Precedent

News of the decision was shared across the internet and people flocked to comment sections to give their views. “I agree with the ruling. They were asked to consider removing him from the primary ballot but the state doesn’t run the primaries and doesn’t have the authority. Also, and I get a lot of hate for saying this, I think it sets a bad precedent to declare him ineligible before he’s convicted of something that falls under insurrection,” one person said.

The Law Is the Law

The commenter continued: “Just because MAGA doesn’t respect the rule of law doesn’t mean we should follow suit, no matter the justification. The law is the law. We only live together as a society because we have laws we agree to follow. We can do this.”

It’s Not Illegal

Another individual wrote: “I called this before. It’s not illegal for Trump to run or even be the nominee, only for him to actually hold the office of president. I imagine the courts will completely sidestep this unless Trump actually wins next year.”

The Keyword Is “Primary”

Plenty of people discussed future possibilities: “The keyword here is ‘primary.’ Primaries are largely controlled by the parties themselves. The ruling leaves the opportunity for him to be disqualified from the general contest. That isn’t actionable at this point though.”

It Should Happen After Conviction

“The ruling opens the door for him to be stripped from the ballot in the general election but I feel like, for maximum national cohesion, if he is to be stripped from the ballot, it should happen before the primary,” another commenter said. “It should happen after conviction,” a second replied.

Colorado Will Be the Same Story

Others weren’t very optimistic: “Not really a shock. Even if they had ruled, it would have been pushed up to the U.S. Supreme Court and they don’t have the best track record as of late. I’m guessing Colorado will probably be the same story.”

An Infuriating Part of the Legal System

Another person wrote: “This is an infuriating part of the legal system. The issue is not yet ripe. When it is ripe, it will take months to rule on and go through any appeals process. The election will be over by that point and it probably will be declared moot. Next time, there will be no precedent and the cycle will repeat from the beginning – which makes the insurrection clause in the Constitution worthless if nobody is willing to enforce it in a timely manner.”

A Specific Crime

The commenter continued: “Trump’s D.C. case doesn’t have any insurrection or seditious conspiracy charges either, so there’s a real defense to say he’s still eligible simply because there hasn’t been a conviction for a specific crime.”

Not a Bad Thing

Others expressed concerns about what the country might become under another Trump presidency: “This isn’t a bad thing. If I’m understanding right, they’re saying there is nothing in the Constitution about him running in the primary? I hope I’m right. If not, fascist theocracy here we come!”

A MAGA Opinion

Editorial credit: Steve Sykes/Shutterstock.

While most commenters were seemingly against Trump, his supporters did show up from time to time to give their opinions. One wrote: “It’s fun watching the libs lose their minds. I do wonder though, why such a concerted effort to make it so the people cannot even vote for him?”