EVERY FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CHALLENGE IS EFFECTIVELY A CONTRIBUTION TO TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN

I know, I know: Donald Trump led an insurrection. The Fourteenth Amendment says that makes him ineligible to hold office.

[The] disqualification argument boils down to Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which says that a public official is not eligible to assume public office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States, or had "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," unless they are granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress.

Advocacy groups have long argued that Trump's behavior after the 2020 election fits those criteria. The argument gained new life earlier this month when two members of the conservative Federalist Society, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, endorsed it in the pages of the Pennsylvania Law Review.

Jennifer Rubin writes:

In practice, that means that secretaries of state and local officials could refuse to list Trump on their ballots, or state legislators, governors and congressional representatives could refuse to certify any electors of him — just as would be the case if Trump had not been born in the United States or had not met the age qualification. Even if Trump is disqualified in only a couple of swing states (say, Michigan and Nevada), any realistic hope of victory would evaporate.

How can we possibly think this is a politcally viable idea, even if it's constitutionally appropriate? We're (justifiably) angry at Trump for wanting his own electors to usurp the appropriately appointed electors for Joe Biden -- but we think it's a good idea to prevent the certification of Trump electors? Seriously, imagine you're a Republican voter (and not necessarily a Trump superfan). You're told every day that Trump's enemies are engaging in "election interference." Then you see our side proposing this. Of course you're going to believe that we're the democracy-haters, the people from whom America must be saved.

And what good will it do? Any challenge to Trump's eligibility will eventually make it to the Supreme Court. How do you think the 6-3 Republican Court will rule on efforts to keep him off ballots or decertify his electors?

It's possible that a challenge to Trump's eligibility could survive Supreme Court scrutiny if he and a conventionally Kochite running mate (Tim Scott, for instance) are already in office -- the Court might decide that Scott would be a more biddable president (and more appealing to swing voters) and might dump Trump then. But the Court won't allow Trump to be removed from ballots now, thus making it impossible for the GOP to win the presidential election. So why bother?

Trust me on this: Every time a state effort to ban Trump from the ballot makes the news, right-wing voters will become more and more motivated to cast a ballot for him. You think he's fund-raising off the Fulton County mugshot? Wait till you see how much money he raises if Michigan or Nevada tries to ban him from the ballot.

Of course he shouldn't be able to run. But if we think there's any chance we'll someday have a nationwide consensus that our elections are legitimate, we shouldn't put it at risk by blatantly denying the crazed GOP electorate the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice.