Challenge to Biden’s Illinois Ballot Eligibility Should Be Dismissed: Hearing Officer

A hearing officer assigned to hear a challenge to President Joe Biden’s qualification to appear on the Illinois Democratic presidential primary ballot says the state’s elections board should dismiss the matter.

The objection petition, filed by four Illinois voters, argued that President Biden does not qualify for the presidency under the terms of the 14th Amendment.

The law disqualifies certain former public office holders from holding any subsequent federal or state office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States or “given aid and comfort” to the nation’s enemies.

President Biden, the objectors argued, is guilty of the latter for declining to enforce the nation’s immigration laws and implementing dozens of border policies that defy those laws.

However, according to hearing officer David Herman, a Springfield elections attorney, the Illinois State Elections Board does not have the authority to assess that allegation.

“It is impossible for the Board to decide whether Candidate is disqualified by Section Three without engaging in a significant and sophisticated constitutional analysis. These constitutional issues belong in the Courts,” Mr. Herman held in his Jan. 27 recommendation.

Related Stories

The attorney also noted that the state’s laws for handling such objections require an expedited process that is “simply not suited for issues involving complex constitutional analysis.” However, he added that if the matter is determined to be within the board’s scope of inquiry, the objection should be dismissed because it fails to prove its allegations.

“Noticeably absent from Objectors’ Petition are any factual allegations that Candidate personally engaged in providing aid or comfort to an enemy of the United States as contemplated by Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. Objectors’ reliance upon a policy decision of Candidate’s Administration that they or others may disagree with, in this case, simply does not rise to the level of pleading to support an allegation of providing aid or comfort to an enemy,” Mr. Herman wrote.

Aid and Comfort

One of the arguments President Biden’s attorneys made in defending him against the challenge was that the objectors’ argument was based on “hearsay” and a personal dislike of the president’s policies rather than factual evidence.

But objector Terry Newsome said he found it “laughable” and “dishonest” that the president’s legal team would claim it wasn’t factual that his policies had aided America’s enemies.

“It’s a fact, not hearsay, and reliable evidence that at no time throughout American history has a president knowingly and purposely allowed our country to be invaded and infiltrated by foreign enemies [until now],” the Downers Grove resident told The Epoch Times.

“He is also purposely forcing the state of Texas to not defend its own borders. And what he should do, as the president, is defend all of us—not go to the Supreme Court to force a state not to defend its own people. … I just don’t get it.”

“Our own weapons are being used against our men and women,” he said.

Other policy moves that the objection cited included the Biden administration’s refusal to continue building the border wall, expanding “unlawful” parole programs, and implementing a “catch-and-release” enforcement policy. Those decisions, they said, benefited the nation’s enemies in numerous countries—including China, Iran, South Korea, and Russia—as well as the Mexican drug cartels.

Contradictions

Despite Mr. Herman’s assertion that the court should decide constitutional matters, he still argued in his recommendation that the plain text of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the presidential office.

“The President is not listed in the hierarchy list of offices set forth in and governed by Section Three,” he noted.

Specifically, the Disqualification Clause applies to those who previously took an oath to support the Constitution “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.” Whether the president counts as “an officer of the United States” has been a matter of debate.

Mr. Herman also pointed out that the president and vice president were listed in previous drafts of the amendment but were later removed. “Accordingly, the Hearing Officer believes Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application,” he wrote.

Notably, the same argument has been made by former President Donald Trump’s attorneys in defending his access to the ballot in various states. Challengers to his eligibility say the former president incited an “insurrection” at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and therefore should be disqualified under the 14th Amendment.

Like Mr. Herman, the hearing officer assigned to President Trump’s Illinois case, retired Republican Judge Clark Erikson, said such matters should be decided by the court and that the objection should therefore be dismissed.

However, unlike Mr. Herman, the former judge argued that the 14th Amendment does apply to the presidential office and that, should the board decide not to dismiss the objection, a “preponderance of the evidence” presented during the Jan. 26 hearing supports disqualifying President Trump for engaging in an insurrection.

Mr. Newsome, pointing to the contradictory opinions, accused the officers of political bias and hypocrisy.

“Donald Trump was never charged or convicted of insurrection,” he said. He further contended that claims the Capitol breach amounted to an insurrection are merely “political propaganda.”

The Illinois State Elections Board is expected to vote on the objections on Jan. 30. When it does, Mr. Newsome said he hopes that officials will treat the two cases fairly across the board, applying the same standards and considerations to both.

The Illinois Primary is set for March 19.

Naveen Athrappully contributed to this report.