Internet cheers as Chalmette woman files lawsuit to keep Trump off Louisiana's 2024 presidential ballot

BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA: A woman from Chalmette, Louisiana, named Ashley Reeb has filed a petition objecting to Donald Trump's presidential candidacy and seeking an injunction to disqualify him from the state's primary ballot next March.

Reeb filed the suit on December 22, in East Baton Rouge Parish, joining other states that have filed similar lawsuits, per DailyMail.

She argues that Trump's actions on January 6, 2021 amount to insurrection, and therefore disqualify him from any further bid for the US presidency.

Reeb filed the lawsuit against outgoing Louisiana Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin, asking that Ardoin be compelled to disqualify Trump from the state's ballot because of his role in the Capitol riot.

Reeb's lawsuit asserts that "Both Trump's actions (engaging in insurrection) as well as his inaction (giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists) on Jan. 6, 2021, disqualify him from holding any office of/under the United States."

Who is Ashley Reeb and why did she file the lawsuit?

Ashley Reeb, hailing from the suburbs of New Orleans, whose social media presence is replete with posts expressing disgruntlement with the unrest that took place on January 6 at the Capitol building, has stated that she drew inspiration from J Michael Luttig, a conservative legal scholar, who posited that the argument in favor of removing Trump from the ballot was "unassailable".

“I have a massive respect for Judge Luttig,” Reed wrote on Facebook and added, “Understanding this is what is driving my actions.”

There is a divergence of opinion amongst political analysts with respect to the legal arguments concerning Article 14 and its implications for the actions of former President Trump.

In the capacity of the petitioner, Reeb contends that Trump should be rendered ineligible for a second term in the White House, on the grounds of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

That provision states: “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 insurrections or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Other states, including Texas, Nevada, and Wisconsin, have filed disqualification lawsuits in regards to Trump's inclusion on the ballot.

A similar constitutional challenge to the eligibility of Donald Trump to be on the ballot recently succeeded in Colorado.

The state's Supreme Court, in a 4-3 vote by its justices, removed Trump from the ballot on December 19, citing the same constitutional argument.

The Colorado Supreme Court’s justices wrote in their ruling, “We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”

However, the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision has been stayed until January 4, 2024.

The Trump campaign has notified its intention to appeal the Colorado decision to the United States Supreme Court.

What did political analysts posit regarding Trump’s disqualification lawsuits?

Following the January 6 riot, former President Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives and currently faces a federal indictment for his involvement in attempting to undermine the election results that Congress was certifying that day.

Despite this, the Republican-controlled Senate voted to acquit Trump, and he has not been found guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.

Robert Collins, a political analyst at Dillard University, opined that Reeb's petition was “a very long shot.”

Collins further explained, “It might be a different situation if he had been criminally convicted in a court of law of insurrection.”  

He also opined that most judges ideologically may not be willing to interpret a president's involvement in insurrection and remove him/her from the ballot.

Collins told Fox 8, “To make an interpretation that a president had engaged in insurrection, and to remove him from the ballot, I think most judges ideologically are just not there.”

He anticipated that the situation could alter, depending on how the US Supreme Court handles the Colorado case.

“If the Supreme Court upholds the Colorado case, it’s open season for these filings, and you’re going to see one in every state,” Collins forecasted.

James Stoner, a political science professor at Louisiana State University (LSU), also agreed with Collins, stating that the absence of a conviction was likely to undermine the petition's credibility.

Stoner explained that the rule of law implies that a prosecutor cannot imprison an individual based on their beliefs.

“The whole meaning of the rule of law is that a prosecutor can’t just jail you because he thinks you’ve done something wrong,” Stoner said.

Stoner further stated that the prosecutor must press charges, and the matter must proceed to trial, as was the case with Trump's impeachment.

He said, “That’s only the first step. The prosecutor makes the charge and then it has to go to trial. That’s what happened with the Trump impeachment. The impeachment is a prosecution, but he was not convicted of those offenses.”

It is to be noted that to date, no court has ruled in favor of those who have filed multiple lawsuits seeking to disqualify President Trump under Section 3.

Furthermore, no election official has taken unilateral action to remove Trump from the ballot without a court order.

However, on Wednesday, December 27, a Michigan court issued a decision allowing President Trump to remain on the ballot, which is in direct contrast to the recent ruling by Colorado judges.

Justice Elizabeth Welch stated, “Significantly, Colorado’s election laws differ from Michigan’s laws in a material way that is directly relevant to why the appellants in this case are not entitled to the relief they seek concerning the presidential primary election in Michigan,” explaining the court’s decision to allow Trump to remain on the state’s ballot.

Internet chuffed with civilians filing lawsuits to keep Trump out of 2024 ballot

People on X expressed their joy amid the holiday season with the news of the former president increasingly getting mired in even more lawsuits ahead of a crucial election year.

One X user wrote, "Looking forward to more of these fillings!"

"Should have been banned from office by midnight Jan 6th. The fact that he wasn’t is a travesty to our constitution," another user commented.

Another user said, "If the Courts apply the law to the facts, it certainly could and probably should happen. It’s verbatim constitutional analysis. If you don’t like the constitution just say you’re either a traitor or a confederate and a traitor to the United States of America."

One user remarked, "Yes! Stand up!"

 

"You know Louisiana is not going to remove Trump from a ballot," another user wrote on X.

"Lol, I, applaud her, but it’s Louisiana, ain’t gonna happen..," one user said.

 

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.