Motions have been filed to remove Trump from the Virginia and West Virginia ballots, questioning his eligibility to run for president.
A motion, filed on Monday, Dec. 18 in district court in Alexandria by Roy L. Perry-Bey of Hampton, makes a bold claim that President Trump is “constitutionally ineligible” under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to hold federal office.
The motion alleges that this ineligibility stems from his alleged engagement in insurrection against the United States following the tumultuous 2020 election season. Such a serious accusation challenges the very foundation of Trump’s candidacy and raises questions about his fitness for public office.
It remains to be seen how this legal maneuver will unfold and whether it will have any significant impact on the 2024 election season.
Meanwhile, a case to prevent Donald Trump from appearing on the primary and general election ballots in West Virginia has been dismissed. U. S. District Judge Irene C. Berger granted motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which was brought by a write-in presidential candidate from Texas..
Judge Berger’s decision to dismiss Castro’s case without prejudice leaves open the possibility for Castro to refile during the candidate filing period.
Attorney General Patrick Morrisey dismissed the lawsuit as frivolous and without merit. He emphasized that any eligible candidate has the right to be on the ballot, as long as they are not legally disqualified. Morrisey pledged to defend the laws of West Virginia and protect the rights of voters and candidates.
Castro is attempting to prevent Trump from being on the Republican primary ballot in West Virginia. He argues that Trump’s actions prior to the certification of the 2020 presidential election contributed to the Capitol riot.
Castro continues to file lawsuits in different states, seemingly in an effort to hinder Trump’s ability to access the ballot. However, it is ironic that Castro complains about the harm done to their campaign and fundraising efforts when they haven’t even received any donations yet.
Berger’s opinion on Castro’s lawsuit is scathing, labeling it as disingenuous. She points out that there is no evidence of Castro actively campaigning or having any campaign presence in West Virginia.
The evidence makes it clear that this individual has no real campaign presence in West Virginia. They lack the basic essentials such as campaign offices, staff, and advertising. Not only are they unknown to West Virginia Republican primary voters, but they also have very limited funds to support a genuine campaign. It’s evident that their so-called “campaign” is primarily focused on legal battles rather than winning votes.
Berger pointed out that in a previous lawsuit, Castro himself admitted to having no campaign activities other than filing lawsuits to prevent Trump from appearing on the ballots. Furthermore, Castro failed to demonstrate how Trump’s presence on the ballot would negatively impact his own write-in presidential campaign. This raises questions about the legitimacy and true motivations behind Castro’s legal actions against Trump.
According to Berger, the law regarding standing based on political competition is lacking development. However, he finds that Mr. Castro’s complaint is based on assumptions and guesswork. There is no concrete evidence to support the claim that Trump voters would automatically become Castro voters if his lawsuit succeeded.
Berger’s ruling contradicts a previous ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court. The latter had declared Trump ineligible for the Colorado primary ballot due to his involvement in insurrection or rebellion, as stated in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
What this says is citing an alleged 14th Amendment violation only holds up in political trials. If the evidence was there, it would be cut and dry, and it should be.
Donald Trump didn’t violate the 14th Amendment on January 6th, 2021 and America should stop putting up with the political persecutions.
George Eliason
