Will Trump appear on Minnesota ballots? Justices will decide

[MUSIC PLAYING] INTERVIEWER: The Minnesota Supreme Court is weighing how to proceed in a case that will decide whether Donald Trump will appear on ballots here in 2024 after it heard oral arguments this morning. Arguments just wrapped up in the last 45 minutes. Our political reporter Dana Ferguson was in the courtroom this morning and she joins us now. Welcome, Dana.

DANA FERGUSON: Thanks for having me.

INTERVIEWER: All right. Set the scene for us. I mean, what was it like in the courtroom?

DANA FERGUSON: Yeah. It was about 75 minutes of fast-paced legal arguments with justices often interjecting with their thoughts or their questions. About 40 people were in the chamber at the Judicial Center. Some of the petitioners, serious legal minds, reporters in a class from an area high school. All the spots in the courtroom were full, and some of those who lined up early were turned away.

INTERVIEWER: OK. So this is a case, obviously, you know, it's really caught the attention of legal scholars, many people nationally. And so were there are many demonstrators at the Judicial Center?

DANA FERGUSON: Yeah. Outside the court building, my colleague Peter Cox spotted a few pro-Trump demonstrators with signs in his support. They told Peter that if people don't want to vote for Trump, that should be their choice. But it's not the court's choice, they said.

INTERVIEWER: OK. So I know that a group of Minnesota voters, I mean, they brought this case and they said, look, Trump, he should be left off the ballot. So how did they lay out their argument today?

DANA FERGUSON: Yeah. Those suing include former Secretary of State Joan Growe and former Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson. They were there today. And the crux of their case is rooted in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Their attorney Ronald Fein was direct in his assessment as to why Trump should be excluded from ballots next year.

RONALD FEIN: Beginning before the 2020 election and culminating on January 6, 2021, Donald Trump engaged in rebellion and insurrection against the Constitution of the United States in a desperate attempt to remain in office after losing the election. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment protects the Republic from oath-breaking insurrectionists because its framers understood that if they're allowed back into power, they will do the same or worse.

DANA FERGUSON: Fein says Trump's actions and fanning the flames in the January 6 uprising met the definition of engaging in disqualifying conduct. And he says the state court has the power to defend the integrity of Minnesota's ballot.

INTERVIEWER: So Dana, it seems to me that that's really the key element here that they need to prove, right? That Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion.

DANA FERGUSON: Right. The main thrust of the petitioner's argument here is that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and that state officials here shouldn't place him on the ballot as a result. Just for a little bit of background, the amendment that they cite was adopted after the civil war to keep former Confederates from resuming federal seats.

Legal scholars say this is a debate that's expected to make its way up to the US Supreme Court, whether it stems from Minnesota or similar cases elsewhere. And many people are watching, as you mentioned, closely because the court hasn't ruled on the provision before.

INTERVIEWER: OK. So now, what did Trump's attorney say in his defense?

DANA FERGUSON: Yeah. His attorneys along with attorneys representing the Republican Party said that Trump didn't engage or incite the January 6 insurrection. Trump campaign lawyer Nicholas Nelson told justices that what Trump did that day didn't rise to the level of participation in an insurrection. Nelson says there is no more vital question than how a president is elected, and it's not one that should be decided by a court.

NICHOLAS NELSON: The Constitution does not say that states have a role to play in determining who is eligible to be the president or making the choice actually of is someone suited to be president. There's a role for state legislatures to play in assessing, in instructing the electors, and that sort of thing. But in making binding legal rulings about who is eligible or not, that's not something that the Constitution says the states should do.

DANA FERGUSON: Nelson says the authority to block a presidential or vice presidential candidate from the ballot rests with either Congress or American voters to decide whether to disqualify a candidate from office. He asked for the case to be dismissed.

INTERVIEWER: OK. So you were in the courtroom, you know you're watching the justices. So did you get a sense of from their body language or what they said how they might come down in this case.

DANA FERGUSON: We don't want to read too deeply into questions, and there were plenty of them. Justice often asked them in sort of a devil's advocate way, but skepticism was apparent throughout. Five minutes in, Chief Justice Natalie Hudson questioned whether the courts were being tugged into a no-win political dispute.

NATALIE HUDSON: You have the potentiality of 50 different states who, depending on the nature of the statutes in those states, deciding this question differently, deciding whether states have the right to determine who's eligible for a national office. And that concerns me that you have this possibility for, as Justice Chase said, for just chaos. So should we do it even if we could do it? And we can do it.

DANA FERGUSON: Justice Hudson later asked the plaintiff's attorney why impeachment isn't a better constitutional tool here. Justice Hudson later asked the plaintiff's-- excuse me-- plaintiff's attorney Ronald Fein responded that it should be solely up to Congress to decide, given that this applies to qualifications of presidential candidates not exclusively presidents. Other justices asked the Trump attorney if House impeachment articles against Trump approved in the January 6 aftermath were evidence in the case. And they didn't necessarily buy into the argument that states have no role in policing their ballots, even for president. Five of the seven justices will ultimately determine what happens next. Two have recused themselves. Four were appointed by DFL governors. And one, associate Justice G. Barry Anderson was appointed by former GOP Governor Tim Pawlenty.

INTERVIEWER: OK. And I watched some of the arguments it was on Zoom or online a little bit and had that sense, OK, when are they going to make a decision? When are they going to decide this case?

DANA FERGUSON: Yeah, plaintiff's attorneys did ask for an evidentiary hearing. So we'll have to see if that happens. Justices acknowledged it's harder to determine what qualifies as an insurrection. In the same way that can assess whether a candidate meets citizenship or age qualifications for office. Chief Justice Hudson even plainly said, quote, "insurrection is in the eye of the beholder," unquote.

All that said, we're expecting a ruling soon because early voting in Minnesota's presidential primary election starts on January 19. The secretary of state's office needs an answer in early January at the latest to get ballots ready. Assistant Attorney General Nathan Hartshorn said it's not a hypothetical that the Republican Party will file to have Trump's name on their primary ballot. So the court could rule in advance of that actually happening.

INTERVIEWER: OK, last question. I mean, do we know, is Minnesota going to be the first to come down on this?

DANA FERGUSON: Yeah. We could be. Minnesota could be the first, if not one of the first to issue a ruling on this issue. This isn't just a Minnesota effort. Cases have been brought in several other states, but ones in Colorado and Minnesota are moving the fastest. A five-day hearing in Denver just kicked off earlier this week with similar arguments playing out there.

And the Colorado Supreme Court is expected to rule mid-November, while Minnesota's Supreme Court is planning to rule just as soon as possible. It's worth noting too that the losing party could try to take their case to the US Supreme Court. So this is all to say this might be just the first step in a longer legal process.

INTERVIEWER: Well, Dana, thanks so much for joining us. And we'll be following this closely Dana Ferguson is a political reporter for NPR News.