Sam Levine for The Guardian:

“Disqualification under the 14th amendment does not require a criminal conviction, Noah Bookbinder, the executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), said in an interview earlier this month. The push to disqualify Trump is likely to play out at the state level in parallel to both the federal and state cases criminally charging Trump and allies in connection with their efforts to overturn the election. The left-leaning group Free Speech for People has already sent letters to election officials in 10 states urging them to declare Trump ineligible to run for office under the 14th amendment. Crew is also preparing to file litigation in several states to disqualify Trump from the ballot, Bookbinder said.

“’It’s really important to resolve this as soon as possible and definitely before the election and not afterwards,’ said Edward Foley, a law professor at the Ohio State University. ‘I am worried that if this doesn’t get resolved definitively, this issue could arise on January 6, 2025 if Trump were to win the electoral college having been on the ballot.

“’You could envision an effort to try and disqualify Trump after he’s won. And I think that would be a disaster. That would be a real constitutional crisis,’ he added.

His N.Y. Times opinion column:

“[The Baude-Paulsen article presents] a fascinating and compelling argument that only grows more compelling with each painstakingly researched page. But as I was reading it, a single, depressing thought came to my mind. Baude and Paulsen’s argument may well represent the single most rigorous and definitive explanation of Section 3 ever put to paper, yet it’s difficult to imagine, at this late date, the Supreme Court ultimately either striking Trump from the ballot or permitting state officials to do so.

“As powerful as Baude and Paulsen’s substantive argument is, the late date means that by the time any challenge to Trump’s eligibility might reach the Supreme Court, voters may have already started voting in the Republican primaries. Millions of votes could have been cast. The Supreme Court is already reluctant to change election procedures on the eve of an election. How eager would it be to remove a candidate from the ballot after he’s perhaps even clinched a primary?

“While I believe the court should intervene even if the hour is late, it’s worth remembering that it would face this decision only because of the comprehensive failure of congressional Republicans. Let me be specific. There was never any way to remove Trump from American politics through the Democratic Party alone. Ending Trump’s political career required Republican cooperation, and Republicans have shirked their constitutional duties, sometimes through sheer cowardice. They have punted their responsibilities to other branches of government or simply shrunk back in fear of the consequences.

On CNN’s State of the Union, presidential candidate (and former governor of Arkansas) Asa Hutchinson invoked the argument that Trump may be constitutionally disqualified from being president again. He anticipates that the issue will be raised in various states and will need to be resolved in the courts. (This post will be updated with a link to the video and/or transcript when available.)

UPDATE: Here’s The Hill’s report on this. And here’s the video; the discussion of section 3 starts at about 1:30.

On the Smerconish broadcast, the issue arose of how and when a case involving Trump’s status under section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment would get to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I made the point that a case is likely to reach the Court on its “shadow docket” this fall. Yesterday’s L.A. Times article helpfully notes this point.

But I think it’s crucial that this issue, as momentous as it is, be adjudicated on the Court’s merits docket, after full briefing and oral argument (even if on an expedited basis), rather than through the issuance of a “shadow docket” emergency decree.

Here’s the video clip of the segment from this morning’s show, on which I was a guest. I think it was a succinct discussion of the key procedural issues involved, including the essential need to resolve this definitively before the election and not (potentially) on January 6, 2025.

Judge Luttig and Larry Tribe in The Atlantic, agreeing with the Baude-Paulsen view of Trump’s disqualification under section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

“The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.

“The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause. …

Ross Douthat in N.Y. Times expressing strong disagreement with the Baude-Paulsen view of Trump’s disqualification under section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment–and aligning himself with Michael McConnell’s and Eric Segalls’s critiques of the Baude-Paulsen view:

“My concern is that not enough people do clearly see what’s risked in these kinds of proceedings, that many of Trump’s opponents still regard some form of legal action as a trump card — that with the right mix of statutory interpretation and moral righteousness, you can simply bend political reality to your will.

“Certainly that’s my feeling reading the argument that the 14th Amendment already disqualifies Trump from the presidency and that indeed no further legal proceedings — no trial for rebellion or treason, no finding of guilt — are necessary for state officials to simply exclude him from their ballots. …