Attorneys representing Oregon voters who are suing to prevent former President Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot have argued in court documents that they do not need to demonstrate harm in order to support their case. The voters, backed by two Portland attorneys and the national advocacy group Free Speech for People, were asked by the Oregon Supreme Court to provide further clarification on their right to sue and the authority of Oregon's Secretary of State to determine a presidential candidate's eligibility. With the final documents filed, the court is now poised to make a decision.

This legal battle in Oregon is part of a broader, multistate effort to remove Donald Trump from the ballot. Critics argue that his actions to overturn the 2020 election results, as well as his support for the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, constitute an insurrection and render him ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Several states, including Maine and Colorado, have ruled in favor of removing Trump from their respective ballots. The Colorado ruling is now being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oregon's Secretary of State, LaVonne Griffin-Valade, along with the Oregon Department of Justice, maintains that she lacks the authority to determine a presidential candidate's qualifications. They argue that voters in Oregon do not directly select a nominee during the primary but rather instruct delegates on how to vote at the national convention. The state's Republican Party requires all delegates to support the winner of Oregon's primary.

Donald Trump has intervened in the Oregon case, filing a 162-page brief in December. In his defense, Trump argues that neither Griffin-Valade nor state courts have the power to decide a candidate's eligibility. He also disputes the allegations of insurrection and claims that the Oregon voters lack standing to sue, as they are neither Republican presidential candidates nor voters who would be prevented from voting for their preferred candidate due to his presence on the ballot.

In response, the attorneys representing the Oregon voters assert in a recent filing that the Oregon Supreme Court holds broad authority in matters of significant public importance and urgency. They argue that ordinary voters are the ones who protect democracy by seeking enforcement of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, when officials fail to act. Requiring these ordinary voters to have a heightened beneficial interest in democracy would create an imbalanced system where fundamental rights cannot be enforced through mandamus to any court.

The Oregon Supreme Court now has all the necessary documents and can issue its decision on the case at any time. This legal battle highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the eligibility of former President Donald Trump to hold public office, demonstrating the importance of clarifying the interpretation of constitutional provisions and the role of state officials in determining a candidate's qualifications.

The Oregon Capital Chronicle, a part of the States Newsroom network, maintains its editorial independence. For inquiries, please contact Editor Lynne Terry at info@oregoncapitalchronicle.com.