Connect with us

Midwest

Iowa secretary of state introduces bill that could limit 14th Amendment ballot challenges against Trump

Published

on

Iowa secretary of state introduces bill that could limit 14th Amendment ballot challenges against Trump

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos and more with your free account!

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email, you are agreeing to Fox News Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate introduced a bill that reportedly could limit challenges to former President Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 ballot.

The legislative proposal comes amid efforts in several states to challenge Trump’s eligibility under Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which prevents individuals from holding office again if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States.

Advertisement

“The Iowa Secretary of State’s Office accepts the recognized political parties’ certifications of their candidates for president and vice president in good faith. This is a technical bill that clarifies which objections the objection panel has jurisdiction to consider but does not prevent anyone from taking legal action or pursuing challenges in court,” Ashley Hunt, a spokesperson for Pate’s office, said in a statement to Fox News Digital on Thursday.

Asked directly if the bill could limit challenges to Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment, Hunt said the bill would not bar lawsuits in court that aim to block candidates from the ballot. Rather, the bill places restrictions on Iowans who object to the eligibility of presidential and vice presidential candidates through petitioning the state commissioner of elections. 

“This bill does not limit someone’s ability from taking legal action or pursuing challenges in court. It simply clarifies the process for the objection panel,” Hunt wrote.

According to the pre-filed bill’s text, which has been visible on the Iowa state legislature’s website since Jan. 18, Pate’s proposal seeks to limit the grounds for challenging all federal candidates, including those running for president and Congress, to questions about age, residency, citizenship and whether their nominating papers meet all the legal requirements.

HAWAII DEMOCRAT INTRODUCES BILL TO BAN TRUMP FROM BALLOT

Advertisement

In Iowa, political parties must submit a certificate with the names of their presidential and vice presidential candidates to the secretary of state’s office 81 days before the general election.

“The bill limits objections to the eligibility of a candidate for a federal office that may be filled with the state commissioner of elections to objections to the legal sufficiency of the nomination petition or certificate of election, or to the residency, age, or citizenship requirements as described in the Constitution of the United States,” according to the proposal text. “With respect to nominations for president or vice president of the United States, the bill allows objections only to the legal sufficiency of the certification of nomination. The certificate of nomination shall be presumed valid.” 

The bill also removes the requirement for federal candidates to sign a statement that they are aware they are disqualified from holding office if convicted of a felony. Under current state law, all candidates running for office – local, state and federal – must do so. Currently, Trump is facing 91 felony charges spanning four criminal cases.

Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

“It would pretty clearly foreclose any challenge to a presidential candidate for being not qualified under the United States Constitution,” Derek Muller, an election law professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School, told the Des Moines Register of the proposal. “So, it would be designed to foreclose a challenge like those filed in Colorado in Maine.”

Advertisement

Hunt told the Register that current law presumes the paperwork candidates file to run for office is valid and provides limitations to what issues are eligible for objection.

The new bill, she explained, would further clarify Iowa’s process for objections.

“This simply extends that same standard to all candidates explicitly,” Hunt told the newspaper.

Former President Trump attends a watch party during the Iowa Republican presidential caucuses in Des Moines on Jan. 15, 2024. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

“To the best of our knowledge, in 2015, Mr. Trump met the Constitutional requirements to be president and continues to do so,” Hunt said. “Mr. Trump has not been convicted of anything that disqualifies him to be president. This bill simply helps clarify the objection process for Iowa.”

Advertisement

MAINE OFFICIAL APPEALS HER REMOVAL OF TRUMP FROM VOTING BALLOTS TO STATE’S TOP COURT

“The U.S. Constitution sets eligibility requirements for Congress and POTUS,” Hunt added. “This update ensures affidavits comply with those requirements.”

Trump swept the Iowa caucuses and then won the New Hampshire primaries this month as the presidential nominating contest turns its focus on the South Carolina primary next month.

Former President Trump acknowledges supporters during his caucus night event, Jan. 15, 2024, in Des Moines, Iowa. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Colorado Supreme Court, in a split decision, and Maine’s Democrat secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, cited the 14th Amendment in barring Trump from the ballot in their respective states for allegedly inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. More recently, a Hawaii Democrat senator introduced a bill that also aimed to block candidates, citing the insurrection clause.

Advertisement

The timelines are tight as Super Tuesday approaches on March 5. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the Colorado case on Feb. 8, which likely means there would not be enough time to meet statutory deadlines for Bellows to reissue a ruling on Trump’s ballot status and for additional appeals to be filed before Election Day.

Lawsuits in Minnesota, Michigan, Arizona and Oregon aiming to block Trump from the 2024 ballot have already been dismissed on procedural grounds, Newsweek reported.

The Illinois State Board of Elections is also reportedly weighing a challenge to Trump’s eligibility.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Read the full article from Here

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Midwest

Walz slams Trump admin for temporarily halting Medicaid funding to Minnesota: ‘Campaign of retribution’

Published

on

Walz slams Trump admin for temporarily halting Medicaid funding to Minnesota: ‘Campaign of retribution’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz accused the Trump administration of unleashing a “campaign of retribution” against his state after Vice President JD Vance announced a temporary pause in Medicaid funding there. 

Vance’s announcement was made after President Donald Trump railed against fraud in Minnesota on Tuesday evening in his State of the Union address. 

Vance said Wednesday that he is giving Walz 60 days to clean up how the state doles out funding, adding, “We are stopping the federal payments that will go to the state government until the state government takes its obligations seriously to stop the fraud that’s being perpetrated against the American taxpayer.” 

“This is a campaign of retribution. Trump is weaponizing the entirety of the federal government to punish blue states like Minnesota,” Walz, a Democrat, wrote in response on X. “These cuts will be devastating for veterans, families with young kids, folks with disabilities, and working people across our state.”

Advertisement

Vice President JD Vance, left, Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Dr. Mehmet Oz, center, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. (Tom Brenner/AP; Steve Karnowski/AP)

“This has nothing to do with fraud. The agents Trump allegedly sent to investigate fraud are shooting protesters and arresting children,” Walz added. “His DOJ is gutting the U.S. Attorney’s Office and crippling their ability to prosecute fraud. And every week Trump pardons another fraudster.” 

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment. 

The administration and Congress have zeroed in on rampant abuse of federal taxpayers’ funds since December 2025, when details of Minnesota’s fraud relating to social and welfare programs stretching back to the COVID-19 pandemic first came into the national spotlight. Investigators have since estimated the Minnesota scheme could top $9 billion.   

HEAVILY REDACTED AUDIT FINDS MINNESOTA MEDICAID HAD WIDESPREAD VULNERABILITIES

Advertisement

Gov. Tim Walz has 60 days to respond to a letter from Mehmet Oz, administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (Jim Vondruska/Getty Images)

Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said Wednesday that the pause marks “the largest action against fraud that we’ve ever taken” at the federal agency, before launching into how the administration is deferring funds to the state.

“It’s going to be $259 million of deferred payments for Medicaid to Minnesota, which we’re announcing, as I speak, to Gov. Walz and his team,” Oz said. “That’s based on an audit of the last three months of 2025. Restated, a quarter billion dollars is not going to be paid this month to Minnesota for its Medicaid claims.”

Dr. Mehmet Oz speaks beside Vice President JD Vance during a news conference on efforts to combat fraud, in the Old Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus on Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2026. (Tom Brenner/AP)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

“We have notified the state and said that we will give them the money, but we’re going to hold it and only release it after they propose and act on a comprehensive corrective action plan to solve the problem,” Oz also said. “If Minnesota fails to clean up the systems, the state will rack up $1 billion of deferred payments this year.” 

Related Article

Minnesota remains front line in Vance's 'war on fraud'; Walz given 60 days 'to clean up the systems'

Read the full article from Here

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Detroit, MI

Terrion Arnold ‘maintains complete innocence’ in kidnapping, theft case

Published

on

Terrion Arnold ‘maintains complete innocence’ in kidnapping, theft case


I represent Mr. Terrion Arnold in connection with an incident that allegedly occurred on February 4, 2026, in Tampa, Florida, which resulted in the arrest of five individuals on serious felony charges.

To be clear, Mr. Arnold had no involvement whatsoever in the activities that led to those arrests. He did not participate in, nor was he present for, any conduct related to the alleged offenses. There is no evidence in police reports, text messages, or witness statements that implicates Mr. Arnold in any way.

In fact, after direct communication with the lead prosecutor, it has been confirmed that no charges have been filed against Mr. Arnold in connection with this matter.

Recent media coverage has referenced an Order issued by Circuit Judge J. Logan Murphy, which improperly suggests Mr. Arnold’s involvement in the incident. That same Order also incorrectly identifies Ms. Devalle as Mr. Arnold’s girlfriend. Both assertions are false, misleading, and entirely unsupported by the record.

Advertisement

Mr. Arnold categorically denies these unfounded claims and maintains his complete innocence. He was not involved in the crimes allegedly committed on February 4, 2026, in Tampa, Florida.

​We strongly urge members of the media to refrain from perpetuating inaccurate or speculative narratives. The facts are clear, and they do not support any claim of wrongdoing by Mr. Arnold.



Source link

Continue Reading

Milwaukee, WI

Sheriff’s Office backpedals on controversial facial recognition deal

Published

on

Sheriff’s Office backpedals on controversial facial recognition deal


play

  • The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office has decided against a contract for facial recognition technology.
  • Sheriff Denita Ball cited community concerns and the importance of public trust in the decision.
  • The move follows similar pushback that led the Milwaukee Police Department to pause its own pursuit of the technology.
  • Local officials and advocates have raised concerns about racial bias, surveillance, and civil rights violations.

The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office will not move forward on a potential deal to use facial recognition technology, Sheriff Denita Ball announced Friday.

In a statement on Feb. 27, Ball said after “thoughtful evaluation” and “meaningful dialogue” with community stakeholders and leaders, she decided to stop pursuing a contract with Biometrica, a Las Vegas-based company whose technology allows authorities to compare photos to a large database of photos for matches. 

Advertisement

“While we recognize the potential of this software as an investigative tool, we also recognize that trust between the MCSO and the people we serve is important,” she said.

“My discussions with local advocates highlighted valid concerns regarding how such data could be accessed or perceived in the current national climate. This decision is not a retreat from innovation but rather an understanding that timing matters, too,” Ball said.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on Feb. 17 that the Sheriff’s Office was on the verge of signing off on the use of facial recognition technology after news broke at a community advisory board meeting held by the office.

The update on the office’s sign-off on an intent to enter into a contract with Biometrica blindsided local officials and advocates because it contradicted earlier claims that the office had not moved forward with a controversial contract.

Advertisement

At the time, supervisors on the county’s judiciary and legislation committee called for more information from the Sheriff’s Office about the nature of the then-potential contract.

Supervisor Justin Bielinski, who chairs the committee, said Ball’s decision to step away from the deal was good news, but said he was still feeling wary.

“I would like to see more I guess,” he said of the two paragraph statement from Ball. “At what point would she reconsider, right?”

County Executive David Crowley, who is running for governor as a Democrat, had also voiced concerns about a possible contract when news came to light earlier this month.

Advertisement

After learning of Ball’s decision to not move forward with Biometrica, Crowley thanked community members who voiced concerns about facial recognition technology, saying he will “continue doing everything in my authority to ensure our residents’ First Amendment rights, civil liberties, and personal data are protected.”

In recent months, Milwaukee politicians and residents rebuffed local law enforcement’s efforts to pursue the use of such technology at both the city and county levels, with many citing concerns over racial bias and unjust surveillance of residents.

The Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors voted last summer to recommend the development of a policy framework for the use of facial recognition technology as worries about its use by local law enforcement grew in the community.

The policy emphasized that the use of such technology doesn’t “suppress First Amendment-related activities, violate privacy, or otherwise adversely impact individuals’ civil rights and liberties,” and called for a pause on acquiring new facial recognition technology until regulatory policies were in place to monitor any existing and new surveillance technology.

In early February, the Milwaukee Police Department paused its pursuit of facial recognition technology after almost a year of pushback from activists and some public officials at public meetings. The department also noted that community feedback was a part of its final decision as well as a volatile political climate amid the federal government’s immigration crackdown.

Advertisement

(This story was updated to add new information.)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending