Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows says she was following Maine’s election law and upholding the U.S. Constitution when she disqualified Donald Trump from her state’s presidential primary ballot.
Maine is the second state to bar Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution — a decision the Trump campaign said it would appeal. It is the only state where a challenge to a candidate’s qualification is initially the responsibility of the secretary of state rather than a court.
CBS News spoke with Bellows shortly after the release of her decision Thursday night.
“Nobody elected me, and nobody convicted him, but I wanted to because we need to defend democracy by restricting who people can vote for.”
[deleted]
The obvious is so overly pronounced, there’s really no need for an explanation. The states keeping Traitor Trump on the ballot are the ones that got some ‘splainin to do.
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Section 3 of the 14th amendment explains her reason to bar Trump from the primary ballot. She doesn’t need to explain anything. It’s in plain text.
Ive never seen so much goddamn fuss about a person following the law before. The text is clear and precise. If you are upset that someone is following the law then you can move to russia or places where there are no laws, its just whatever the dear leader wants.
This must be like trying to explain how 2+2=4 to MAGA dimwits. In other words, painfully obvious to the rest of us, but extremely difficult for the target audience.
Let me simplify he aided and comforted insurrectionists. Period. Next.
If it is so obvious to everyone on this subreddit that the 14th bars Trump from running for office then why do California and Michigan disagree? I assume if you believe the 14th is so clear about it then you also agree that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
Was it the involvement in sedition? Because that’s disqualifying. And he was deeply involved. The deepliest.
States Rights . Where have I heard this before?
Even with the ‘protected speech’ defence, that he gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists is enough to bar him under the amendment.
Republicans hate their constitution.
Was it the treason?
We the people passed a constitutional amendment to prevent traitors to the nation from holding office. It’s there to prevent rebelling states from installing someone loyal to their cause from holding office.
Amendments are agreed upon by the state legislature. There’s no need for Supreme Court interpretation. The constitution supersedes their authority. Any law putting him on a ballot passed by an individual state would be unconstitutional and subject to judicial review.
That’s how this works.
She is my hero.
This is what actual election interference looks like. A bureaucrat unilaterally deciding who can run for president.
Cannot be any clearer. It’s constitutional and legal. Fucking snowflake republicans can’t get through their Neanderthal skulls.
“However, Bellows found that the early draft in fact “confirms that the drafters both intended the presidency to be covered by Section Three and considered the presidency an office.”
Can you imagine the founding fathers coming forward and time and be like “yeah Jefferson wanted that in there but we told him it was stupid. Nobody would believe the president wasn’t an officer of the US
> “We are witnessing, in real-time, the attempted theft of an election and the disenfranchisement of the American voter,” he added.
Would it be “disenfranchisement of the American voter” if a 26 year old were kept off the ballot? Or a naturalized citizen? Of course not.
As Republicans love to remind people, we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The Constitution puts limits on our democracy, and disqualifying an insurrectionist from holding office is one of those limits.
Next idea is to ban him from McDonalds and wearing gold shoes lol
>”In evaluating the weight of the evidence, it (was) made clear that Mr. Trump was aware of the tinder that was laid in a multi-month effort to delegitimize the 2020 election and (he) then chose to light a match,” said Bellows, a Democrat who took office in 2021.
“The U.S. Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government. And Maine election law required me to act in response,” she said. “The events of January 6 were unprecedented and tragic. It was an assault not only on the Capitol and government officials, including the former vice president and members of Congress, but on the rule of law itself. … Mr. Trump engaged in that insurrection and thereby, is not qualified to be on the ballot.”
>
>”In Maine, we’re very proud of our voting rights. We were first in the nation in 2022 with voter participation. And we have a statute that makes me different from any other state that I have observed,” said Bellows. “My obligation under Maine state law was to issue a decision very quickly. I’m not permitted under Maine law to wait for the United States Supreme Court to intervene in this particular proceeding.”
>
>”The parties did not dispute in the hearing that Mr. Joseph Biden won the 2020 election and that Mr. Donald Trump did not win 2020,” she explained. “Public statements alleging that Mr. Trump won is not factual evidence that Mr. Trump won and indeed, neither Mr. Trump’s counsel nor the challengers made that argument. Therefore, I ruled that Mr. Trump did not win the 2020 election and the 22nd Amendment prohibition of serving more than two terms in office does not apply.”
>
>”I am mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3,” said Bellows, echoing a line from her ruling. “And I’m also mindful that no presidential candidate has ever engaged in insurrection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”
I mean it’s pretty black and white and easy to understand.
If any patriots need protection. All they have to do is call me. I’ll drive at my own expense. All I need is a porta potty and sandwiches. Water, I’ll need water.
I don’t like the precedent this is setting. I’m all for barring him, but he hasn’t been convicted of anything at all yet. This seems great but it’s just saying you don’t need to actually be found guilty of anything they just have to say you are. I could definitely see this coming back to bite us all in another 10 years.
> A third challenger introduced a novel theory, arguing that Trump is barred from holding office again under the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prevents presidents from serving more than two terms, since “Trump has expressly stated he won the 2020 election.”
Ok that’s pretty funny actually
TLDR, she can read.
Cause he is an insurrectionist and a horrible person. Personally all states should not listen to supreme court if they side with him. Let’s stand up to conservatives!
Anyone spearheading these ballot changes is knowingly painting a target on their back and for their bravery I commend them. Fuck the Right.
We all saw Trump at the start of the rally, the rally where he told them to go to the Capitol- remember! Trump yelled into the microphone to the crowd to go to the Capitol! Then they literally did just that- smearing poop on the walls, looking to kill the VP, assaulting the police, etc etc
Do we live in Russia?
She’s done a bang-up job responding to questions regarding her action.
TLDR: she doesn’t have a legitimate reason.
Lmao please don’t call her brave. I wouldn’t think she is
36 comments
Here’s a preview of the article:
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows says she was following Maine’s election law and upholding the U.S. Constitution when she disqualified Donald Trump from her state’s presidential primary ballot.
Maine is the second state to bar Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution — a decision the Trump campaign said it would appeal. It is the only state where a challenge to a candidate’s qualification is initially the responsibility of the secretary of state rather than a court.
CBS News spoke with Bellows shortly after the release of her decision Thursday night.
**Read more:** [cbsnews.com/news/maine-secretary-of-state-shenna-bellows-explains-barring-trump-primary-ballot/?ftag=CNM-05-10abh9g](http://cbsnews.com/news/maine-secretary-of-state-shenna-bellows-explains-barring-trump-primary-ballot/?ftag=cnm-05-10abh9g)
“Nobody elected me, and nobody convicted him, but I wanted to because we need to defend democracy by restricting who people can vote for.”
[deleted]
The obvious is so overly pronounced, there’s really no need for an explanation. The states keeping Traitor Trump on the ballot are the ones that got some ‘splainin to do.
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Section 3 of the 14th amendment explains her reason to bar Trump from the primary ballot. She doesn’t need to explain anything. It’s in plain text.
Ive never seen so much goddamn fuss about a person following the law before. The text is clear and precise. If you are upset that someone is following the law then you can move to russia or places where there are no laws, its just whatever the dear leader wants.
This must be like trying to explain how 2+2=4 to MAGA dimwits. In other words, painfully obvious to the rest of us, but extremely difficult for the target audience.
Let me simplify he aided and comforted insurrectionists. Period. Next.
If it is so obvious to everyone on this subreddit that the 14th bars Trump from running for office then why do California and Michigan disagree? I assume if you believe the 14th is so clear about it then you also agree that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
Was it the involvement in sedition? Because that’s disqualifying. And he was deeply involved. The deepliest.
States Rights . Where have I heard this before?
Even with the ‘protected speech’ defence, that he gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists is enough to bar him under the amendment.
Republicans hate their constitution.
Was it the treason?
We the people passed a constitutional amendment to prevent traitors to the nation from holding office. It’s there to prevent rebelling states from installing someone loyal to their cause from holding office.
Amendments are agreed upon by the state legislature. There’s no need for Supreme Court interpretation. The constitution supersedes their authority. Any law putting him on a ballot passed by an individual state would be unconstitutional and subject to judicial review.
That’s how this works.
She is my hero.
This is what actual election interference looks like. A bureaucrat unilaterally deciding who can run for president.
Cannot be any clearer. It’s constitutional and legal. Fucking snowflake republicans can’t get through their Neanderthal skulls.
“However, Bellows found that the early draft in fact “confirms that the drafters both intended the presidency to be covered by Section Three and considered the presidency an office.”
Can you imagine the founding fathers coming forward and time and be like “yeah Jefferson wanted that in there but we told him it was stupid. Nobody would believe the president wasn’t an officer of the US
> “We are witnessing, in real-time, the attempted theft of an election and the disenfranchisement of the American voter,” he added.
Would it be “disenfranchisement of the American voter” if a 26 year old were kept off the ballot? Or a naturalized citizen? Of course not.
As Republicans love to remind people, we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The Constitution puts limits on our democracy, and disqualifying an insurrectionist from holding office is one of those limits.
Next idea is to ban him from McDonalds and wearing gold shoes lol
>”In evaluating the weight of the evidence, it (was) made clear that Mr. Trump was aware of the tinder that was laid in a multi-month effort to delegitimize the 2020 election and (he) then chose to light a match,” said Bellows, a Democrat who took office in 2021.
“The U.S. Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government. And Maine election law required me to act in response,” she said. “The events of January 6 were unprecedented and tragic. It was an assault not only on the Capitol and government officials, including the former vice president and members of Congress, but on the rule of law itself. … Mr. Trump engaged in that insurrection and thereby, is not qualified to be on the ballot.”
>
>”In Maine, we’re very proud of our voting rights. We were first in the nation in 2022 with voter participation. And we have a statute that makes me different from any other state that I have observed,” said Bellows. “My obligation under Maine state law was to issue a decision very quickly. I’m not permitted under Maine law to wait for the United States Supreme Court to intervene in this particular proceeding.”
>
>”The parties did not dispute in the hearing that Mr. Joseph Biden won the 2020 election and that Mr. Donald Trump did not win 2020,” she explained. “Public statements alleging that Mr. Trump won is not factual evidence that Mr. Trump won and indeed, neither Mr. Trump’s counsel nor the challengers made that argument. Therefore, I ruled that Mr. Trump did not win the 2020 election and the 22nd Amendment prohibition of serving more than two terms in office does not apply.”
>
>”I am mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3,” said Bellows, echoing a line from her ruling. “And I’m also mindful that no presidential candidate has ever engaged in insurrection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”
I mean it’s pretty black and white and easy to understand.
If any patriots need protection. All they have to do is call me. I’ll drive at my own expense. All I need is a porta potty and sandwiches. Water, I’ll need water.
I don’t like the precedent this is setting. I’m all for barring him, but he hasn’t been convicted of anything at all yet. This seems great but it’s just saying you don’t need to actually be found guilty of anything they just have to say you are. I could definitely see this coming back to bite us all in another 10 years.
> A third challenger introduced a novel theory, arguing that Trump is barred from holding office again under the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prevents presidents from serving more than two terms, since “Trump has expressly stated he won the 2020 election.”
Ok that’s pretty funny actually
TLDR, she can read.
Cause he is an insurrectionist and a horrible person. Personally all states should not listen to supreme court if they side with him. Let’s stand up to conservatives!
Anyone spearheading these ballot changes is knowingly painting a target on their back and for their bravery I commend them. Fuck the Right.
We all saw Trump at the start of the rally, the rally where he told them to go to the Capitol- remember! Trump yelled into the microphone to the crowd to go to the Capitol! Then they literally did just that- smearing poop on the walls, looking to kill the VP, assaulting the police, etc etc
Do we live in Russia?
She’s done a bang-up job responding to questions regarding her action.
TLDR: she doesn’t have a legitimate reason.
Lmao please don’t call her brave. I wouldn’t think she is
He’s a treasonous asshole.