Donald Trump has never carried New Hampshire’s four Electoral College votes and polls show he’s not likely to this November. But the U.S. Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling keeping him on the ballot in the Granite State and across the country was generally viewed a a positive development.
That decision struck down attempts by anti-Trump activists to remove the former president’s name from the ballot in Colorado using the 14th Amendment’s language barring people guilty of “insurrection” from running for federal office. Trump’s ballot access had been challenged in at least 31 states, including Maine where the secretary of state unilaterally barred him.
New Hampshire’s top election official, Secretary of State David Scanlan, was happy with the ruling. It affirmed his decision last September to reject those challenges.
“There is nothing in our state statute that gives the secretary of state discretion in entertaining qualification issues. Once a candidate swears under the penalties of perjury that they meet the qualifications to be president, and if a candidate for president properly submits their paperwork during the filing period and pays the required fee, their name will appear on the ballot,” Scanlan said at the time.
Asked about Monday’s ruling, Scanlan said, “I believe the United States Supreme Court has clearly and unambiguously settled the issue of whether the individual states can reject a candidate from appearing on their ballot using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as a reason. It is reassuring to know New Hampshire got it right as the First-in-the-Nation presidential primary state.”
Not surprisingly, New Hampshire Republicans were pleased with the decision. “A 9-0 decision is a smackdown to those who were trying to take away the people’s vote,” said state GOP Chair Chris Ager.
“It’s important that the people get the opportunity to speak,” state Democratic Party chair Ray Buckley told WMUR. “They rejected Donald Trump both in 2016 and in 2020, and they’re going to do it again in 2024.”
But other Granite State Democrats don’t agree. They are angry the Supreme Court didn’t end Trump’s candidacy and accuse the court of partisan motivations.
“As predicted, the U.S. Supreme Court protects dictators when it didn’t have to do so in ruling against Colorado’s ballot access decision,” N.H. Democratic attorney Nancy Richards-Stower posted on social media. “According to the six Republicans on the Supreme Court, all a future President Trump would have to do is intimidate enough members of Congress to save his future candidacies in perpetuity? Yup. Look ahead, America.”
Meanwhile, the Texas man and erstwhile presidential candidate who’s filed unsuccessful lawsuits in multiple states to boot Trump, John Anthony Castro, claims Monday’s decision is “non-binding.”
“As Justices (Amy Coney) Barrett, (Sonia) Sotomayor, (Elana) Kagan, and (Ketanji Brown) Jackson all recognized, the majority’s expression of its opinion regarding the interplay of Section 3 and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment was neither required nor a question properly before the court. As such, it fits squarely within the definition of non-binding dicta. As the Supreme Court itself recognized, ‘we are not bound to follow our dicta in a prior case in which the point now at issue was not fully debated,’” Castro told NHJournal.
Castro filed two lawsuits to stop Trump in New Hampshire, partly arguing the novel legal theory that Trump’s candidacy was harming his own effort to win the GOP nomination. After witnesses testified that he had no realistic chance of winning, Castro’s lawsuits were dismissed.
Castro, who is not a licensed attorney, runs a tax law business that’s got him in some trouble. He was indicted on 33 federal felonies in January alleging he filed false tax returns for clients in order to obtain large refunds the clients were not entitled to receive. Casto is currently behind a lawsuit to get Associate Justice Clarence Thomas removed from the Court for alleged corruption.
Damien Fisher contributed to this report.
