Two prominent liberal lawyers have proposed an unconventional legal strategy to prevent Donald Trump from assuming the presidency after his 2024 election victory.
According to The Daily Caller, attorneys Evan Davis and David Schulte argue that Congress can reject Trump's electoral votes during the January 6 certification process, potentially paving the way for Vice President Kamala Harris to assume the presidency instead.
The attorneys base their argument on the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause, which bars individuals who have engaged in insurrection after taking an oath to support the Constitution from holding office.
They contend this constitutional provision could be used to challenge Trump's eligibility when Congress meets to certify the electoral votes.
Davis and Schulte outlined their strategy in a column for The Hill, explaining that electoral votes can be rejected if they were either not lawfully certified or not regularly given. The attorneys presented their case, stating their views on the matter.
As Davis and Schulte wrote:
The unlikelihood of congressional Republicans doing anything that might elect Harris as president is obvious. But Democrats need to take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.
The attorneys detailed the procedural requirements for such an objection, explaining that it would need support from 20 percent of members in each chamber of Congress. They further argued that if successful, this strategy could lead to Harris becoming president by reducing the number of required electoral votes.
The proposal faces significant obstacles, particularly in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. In February, the Court rejected Colorado's attempt to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot, ruling that Congress must first pass legislation to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Several states had attempted similar measures to block Trump's ballot access earlier in the election cycle. These efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, setting important legal precedents for future challenges.
Leading Democratic figures have already indicated they do not support challenging Trump's electoral victory.
New York Representative Joe Morelle expressed support for a normal transfer of power, contrasting it with the events of January 6, 2021. Even Democrats who previously objected to Trump's electors in 2017 have stated they will not pursue similar actions this time.
The attorneys' proposal represents the latest attempt to challenge Trump's return to the presidency through constitutional means. While Davis and Schulte present their argument as a constitutional necessity, the practical and political obstacles appear insurmountable.
Democratic leadership's clear stance against electoral challenges, combined with the Supreme Court's earlier ruling on ballot access, suggests this strategy is unlikely to succeed. The situation continues to evolve as the January 6 certification date approaches, with most indicators pointing toward a conventional transfer of power despite ongoing legal discussions.
