Why we should repeal Section 3

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

It was bound to happen — and it has.

A trio of filings have been submitted to the Illinois Board of Elections to ban President Joe Biden from the ballot in that state, emulating the efforts around the country, including here in Minnesota, to challenge the eligibility of former President Donald Trump to serve again on grounds that he violated the “insurrection” clause in Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.

The Illinois objectors, apparently supporters of the ex-president, point to a different provision in Section 3, making ineligible for office-holding any individual who has given “aid and or comfort” to any “enemies” of this country.

The Biden challengers maintain that the incumbent transgressed by giving aid and assistance to several adverse countries, including China, and other unfriendly foreign forces, not only during his current presidency but as vice president under President Barack Obama, too.

It’s a familiar tactic from the former president and his acolytes. When accused of wrongdoing, strike back against the accuser with similar or more serious charges.

While it’s doubtful that the ban-Biden attempt will get very far in a blue state like Illinois, dominated by Democrats, it could be a precursor for similar efforts in more Trump-friendly jurisdictions. Including the majority of state governments that are controlled by Republicans.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will consider the Trump eligibility issue on Feb. 8, hearing the cases from the two states, Colorado and Maine, where the former president has been deemed ineligible. Its ruling is likely to resolve the similar case in Minnesota that the state Supreme Court punted last fall, but which remains in play pending the federal court’s determination in the Colorado case and Maine matter.

Depending upon the outcome of that litigation, more efforts may spring up in red states and blue ones as well — to try to accomplish ballot exclusion. Similar attempts might also arise in future years as well.

It may well be, given the controversies and uncertainties, that regardless how the high court rule the best solution is to repeal Section 3 and let the voters decide whom they want in the White House, including insurrectionists or those who aid or comfort the nation’s antagonists.

Repeal might be the rare proposition that is agreeable to nearly all parties and factions.

It would give the public, once and for all, the opportunity or misfortune to have the kind of government it wants — and deserves.

Marshall H. Tanick is a constitutional lawyer in Minneapolis.