…
Scott Detrow: So how did you define “engaging in insurrection” here?
Shenna Bellows: Well, let’s back up first and make sure that everyone understands that Maine law is, to my knowledge, different from every other state.
Under Maine law, when I qualified Mr. Trump for the ballot, any registered voter had the right to challenge that qualification. Five voters did so, including two former Republican state senators. And then I was required under the statute, under the law, to hold a hearing and issue a decision, and do so within a very compressed timeline. So this wasn’t something I initiated, but it’s something that’s required under Maine election law.
Detrow: So the question came to you, but it puts you in the position of weighing a really serious question with big consequences that’s in front of a lot of state courts right now. And that is this question of whether the attempt to overturn the election and what happened on January 6 was insurrection. How did you think about that key question?
Bellows: So I reviewed very carefully the hearing proceedings and the weight of the evidence presented to me at the hearing. And that evidence made clear, first, that those events of January 6, 2021 — and we all witnessed them — they were unprecedented. They were tragic. But they were an attack not only upon the capital and government officials, but also an attack on the rule of law, on the peaceful transfer of power. And the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that they occurred at the behest of, and with the knowledge and support of, the outgoing president. And the United States Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government. And under Maine election law, I was required to act in response.
They had less than a week to send it to the Maine state courts I believe. We’ll see how fast it goes from there.
That sounds typical of an administrative appeal. The Main Sec. state held an evidentiary hearing on this question and ruled against Trump based on the evidence, as is her prerogative. Administrative decisions are not likely to be reversed on appeal because the standard is one of abuse of discretion. The Secretary’s decision would have to be clearly erroneous for it to be tossed.