Analysts and public figures have weighed in on whether former President Donald Trump should be part of the political process in the United States. Former Republican US Representative Liz Cheney argued that Trump should not be included in early voting and suggested his name be kept out of initial ballots. The comments were cited in the Policy publication, highlighting a push by some to limit Trump’s involvement while the legal landscape remained unsettled.
Cheney asserted that Trump’s actions could be interpreted as criminal offenses under the language of the 14th Amendment, and she indicated that any determination about his eligibility would ultimately be resolved through the courts. Her stance reflects a broader debate over constitutional disqualification and the balance between the legal system and political processes in addressing alleged misconduct.
David Axelrod, a former adviser to Barack Obama and a CNN columnist, stated that excluding Trump from the voting process could provoke deep national tensions. He questioned the legal basis for such a move, pointing to the possibility of intense political and societal divisions if a candidate were barred from participating in elections.
In Maine, Secretary of State Shanna Bellows, a Democrat, removed Trump from her list of primary candidates, citing his role in the January 2021 attack on the Capitol. Bellows argued that Trump’s actions could be interpreted as a violation of the 14th Amendment, preventing him from participating in elections on the grounds of insurrection. Lawyers for the former president challenged the move, which followed a similar decision in Colorado. However, Trump could not be excluded from primaries in California, Michigan, and Missouri at that time, illustrating the uneven application of the eligibility question across states.
Earlier developments show Trump appealing certain eligibility challenges, with Colorado drawing significant attention as a battleground for eligibility disputes. The evolving legal questions and differing state actions have kept the debate in the public eye and underscored the ongoing tension between constitutional interpretation, electoral rules, and political strategy.