A Cook County judge ruled Wednesday that former President Donald Trump should be removed from Illinois' primary ballot because of violations of the “insurrection clause” in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling, issued by Circuit Court Judge Tracie Porter on Wednesday, agreed with arguments made by Colorado’s Supreme Court when it kicked Trump off the ballot in that state. Porter's ruling came after a determination by Illinois' State Board of Elections in January that Trump's name should remain on the ballot, but also recommended that a court make the ultimate decision in the case.
Porter also put the ruling on hold until at least Friday due to an anticipated appeal in Illinois court.
Colorado's case is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, with a ruling expected before its March 5 primary election. Porter said in her ruling that the order would be put on hold if the Supreme Court’s ruling was “inconsistent” with hers.
Feeling out of the loop? We'll catch you up on the Chicago news you need to know. Sign up for the weekly Chicago Catch-Up newsletter here.
As of Feb. 29, Trump's name remained on Illinois' primary ballot.
MORE: Chicago early voting resumes after candidate was removed from ballot
"He remains on the ballot," Professor Nick Kachiroubas, Ph.D. School of Public Service told NBC Chicago. "The ballot is already printed. What would happen is, he would get votes. If this ruling were to stand, those votes would be invalidated."
Illinois' primary election takes place on March 19, with early voting currently underway.
Illinois Republican Party chairman Don Tracy issued the following statement in reaction to the ruling:
"As we've stated repeatedly, the Illinois Republican Party believes the people, not activist courts or unelected bureaucrats, should choose who represents them in the White House. This decision to remove President Trump from the ballot without due process is an affront to democracy and limits the voting rights of Illinois citizens."
The former president's spokesperson Steven Cheung promised a swift appeal to the ruling.
"Democrat front-groups continue to attempt to interfere in the election and deny President Trump his rightful place on the ballot," the statement read. "Today, an activist Democrat judge in Illinois summarily overruled the state's board of elections and contradicted earlier decisions from dozens of other state and federal jurisdictions. This is an unconstitutional ruling that we will quickly appeal. In the meantime, President Trump remains on the Illinois ballot, is dominating the polls, and will Make America Great Again!”
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Colorado case in early February, and according to legal experts cited by The New York Times and other publications, there was skepticism in the arguments made to keep the former president off the ballot.
The Illinois ruling repeatedly cited findings from the Colorado case, saying that Trump’s actions in the lead-up to, and on the day of Jan. 6, 2021, should be construed as insurrection, making him ineligible to hold the office of president.
Colorado’s Supreme Court concluded “that because President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section Three, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the secretary to list President Trump as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”
Trump’s attorneys have disputed that characterization in appeals, saying that his actions fell well short of the 14th Amendment’s definition of insurrection. They cited tweets the president had sent calling for peace in Washington amid the chaos at the Capitol, but Porter dismissed those remarks as “plausible deniability” of potential crimes.
“This tweet could not possibly have had any other intended purposes besides to fan the flames. The hearing office determines that these calls to peace via social media, coming after an inflammatory tweet are the product of trying to give himself plausible deniability,” the ruling read.
She argued that the Capitol riot’s purpose was “the furtherance of the president’s plan to disrupt the electoral count taking place before the joint meeting of Congress,” and therefore qualified as insurrection under the Constitution.
