Former US president Donald Trump has appealed a ruling by Maine’s secretary of state barring him from the state’s 2024 ballot over his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

On Tuesday, he contended she had no authority, that he incited no riot, never swore to “support” the constitution and was not a government officer as stipulated in the constitutional amendment she cited.

Mr Trump appealed the Maine decision by Democrat Shenna Bellows, who became the first secretary of state in history to bar someone from running for the presidency under the rarely used Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

Mr Trump’s appeal on Tuesday asks that Ms Bellows be required to place him on the March 5 primary ballot and argues that she abused her discretion and relied on “untrustworthy evidence”.

“The secretary should have recused herself due to her bias against President Trump, as demonstrated by a documented history of prior statements prejudging the issue presented,” Mr Trump’s lawyers wrote.

Ms Bellows reiterated to The Associated Press on Tuesday that her ruling was on pause pending the outcome of the appeal, which had been expected.

“This is Maine’s process and it’s really important that first and foremost every single one of us who serves in government uphold the Constitution and the laws of the state.”

Colorado appeal expected

Mr Trump is expected to appeal a similar ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court directly to the US Supreme Court, which has never issued a decision on Section 3.

The Colorado court’s 4-3 ruling that it applied to Mr Trump was the first time in history the provision was used to bar a presidential contender from the ballot.

Mr Trump’s critics have filed dozens of lawsuits seeking to disqualify him in multiple states.

None succeeded until a slim majority of Colorado’s seven justices — all of whom were appointed by Democratic governors — ruled against Mr Trump.

A week after Colorado’s ruling, Ms Bellows issued her own. Critics warned it was even more perilous because it could pave the way for partisan election officials to simply disqualify candidates they oppose.

Ms Bellows, a former head of Maine’s branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, has previously criticised Mr Trump and his behaviour on January 6.

History of Section 3

The constitution’s Section 3 has been barely used since the years after the Civil War, when it kept defeated Confederates from returning to their former government positions.

The two-sentence clause says that anyone who swore an oath to “support” the constitution and then engaged in insurrection cannot hold office unless a two-thirds vote of Congress allows it.

Mr Trump’s lawyers argue the provision isn’t intended to apply to the president, contending that the oath for the top office in the land isn’t to “support” the constitution but instead to “preserve, protect and defend” it.

They also argue that the presidency isn’t explicitly mentioned in the amendment, only any “officer of the United States”.

Mr Trump made the opposite argument defending against his prosecution for falsifying business records by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, contending the case should move to federal court because the president is “an officer of the United States”.

The prosecutors argued that language only applies to presidential appointees — Mr Trump’s position in Maine.

The contention that Section 3 doesn’t apply to the president drew a scathing response from the Colorado Supreme Court last month.

“President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oath breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,” the court’s majority opinion said.

“Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.”

Section 3 recently returned to use. In 2022, a judge used it to remove a rural New Mexico county commissioner from office after he was convicted of a misdemeanour for entering the US Capitol on January 6.

Liberal groups sued to block Republican Representatives Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene from running for re-election because of their roles on that day. Mr Cawthorn’s case became moot when he lost his primary in 2022, and a judge ruled to keep Ms Greene on the ballot.

Some conservatives warn that, if Mr Trump is removed, political groups will routinely use Section 3 against opponents in unexpected ways.

Mr Trump and his allies have attacked the cases against him as “anti-democratic” and sought to tie them to President Joe Biden because the Colorado case and some others are funded by liberal groups who share prominent donors with the Democratic president. But Mr Biden’s administration has noted that the president has no role in the litigation.

Those who support using the provision against Mr Trump counter that the January 6 attack was unprecedented in American history and that there will be few cases so ripe for Section 3.

If the high court lets Mr Trump stay on the ballot, they’ve contended, it will be another example of the former president bending the legal system to excuse his extreme behaviour.

AP