In a recent Supreme Court case, Donald Trump v. Norma Anderson, oral arguments brought to light an unexpected historical issue that had not been anticipated by historians. The case, which revolves around eligibility for the ballot rather than for office, revealed a significant historical anomaly that could impact the court's ruling.

Amicus briefs led by esteemed historians Jill Lepore and Vernon Burton convincingly argued that the framers of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment would have intended to make Donald Trump ineligible for the office of president. However, these briefs failed to consider that in 1866, when the amendment was drafted, the ballots as we know them today did not exist.

During that time, official ballots printed by each state were not required to list the names of all qualified candidates. Instead, political parties printed ballots exclusively featuring their own candidates' names. Voters had the freedom to write in any candidate of their choice or create their own ballot. State officials would then tally the votes, excluding those for individuals ineligible for office. Disputes over incorrect disqualification of votes had to be appealed to higher authorities or the courts.

Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar and his brother, University of California-Davis law professor Vikram Amar, presented a well-informed amicus brief that highlighted the potential dangers of neglecting this historical complication. They argued that federalism allows states to interpret Section 3 of the 14th Amendment differently regarding eligibility for the ballot. However, their argument fails to acknowledge that at the time of its creation, there was no concept of individual "state ballots," only party ballots.

While this historical anomaly may make it easier for the Supreme Court to rule against Colorado in this specific case, it raises the more significant question of Donald Trump's eligibility for office. The full understanding of history becomes crucial in addressing this issue.

The Reconstruction amendments, including Section 3, introduced important restraints on states. They abolished slavery, guaranteed due process and equal protection, and ensured that suffrage could not be denied based on race or previous servitude. Section 3 itself responded primarily to President Andrew Johnson's pardoning of ex-Confederates, limiting the pardoning power by imposing disabilities on those who had engaged in insurrection.

However, the framers of Section 3 did not anticipate questions regarding eligibility for the ballot. Consequently, while the court may rule against Colorado on this matter, it leaves the crucial question of Trump's eligibility for office unanswered. The responsibility of deciding this issue remains unclear.

Congress holds the constitutional authority to regulate its membership and could refuse to seat ineligible senators or representatives under Section 3. Military commanders during the Reconstruction era could also prevent those ineligible for office from taking state positions. However, historical precedent shows that Congress, after imposing military rule in former Confederate states, quickly removed most disabilities. Thus, practical guidance on disqualifying Trump is lacking.

Considering the direction of oral arguments, the Supreme Court appears hesitant to permit states to discard ballots after they are cast or to provide a ruling on Trump's eligibility. If the court refuses to address this issue, it would fall to Congress, potentially in 2025, to declare him ineligible to count electors, a politically challenging move if Trump were to secure a majority in the Electoral College.

While it is likely that the framers' intention behind Section 3 may be neglected once again, it is essential to maintain a historical perspective. Past Supreme Court rulings regarding the 14th Amendment have sometimes disregarded historical context, but in cases like Brown v. Board of Education, the court correctly interpreted the equal protection clause despite the framers permitting segregated schools in Washington.

While the Roberts court emphasizes original intent, it remains to be seen how they will handle an original intent that they may not favor. The court's potential judicial restraint, avoiding ruling on the eligibility question and deferring it to voters, may be preferable to the controversial interference seen in the 2000 election case, Bush v. Gore. However, this approach does not definitively align with the original intent of Section 3.

In conclusion, the historical anomaly revealed during the Supreme Court case highlights the complex issue of eligibility for both the ballot and office. While the court's ruling on Colorado's eligibility criteria may be straightforward, addressing the fundamental question of Donald Trump's eligibility for office remains uncertain. The role Congress will play in resolving this matter in the future is yet to be determined.