A proposal from Democratic Party allies seeks to block Donald Trump from regaining the presidency in 2024, citing his alleged violation of the 14th Amendment as grounds for disqualification.

Key proponents suggest using objections during the Electoral College vote count to disqualify Trump, potentially reducing the vote threshold to install Vice President Kamala Harris as president, as The Blaze reports.

Plan Advocates Cite 14th Amendment

David Schulte and Evan Davis, writing in The Hill, outlined their strategy to prevent Trump from taking office if he wins re-election. Their argument hinges on claims that Trump’s actions surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol events and prior impeachment trials qualify him as an "oath-breaking insurrectionist."

The 14th Amendment includes provisions to bar individuals involved in insurrection from holding public office. Schulte and Davis argue that this amendment provides a constitutional basis for disqualifying Trump from the presidency.

They proposed leveraging objections during the congressional certification of the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2025, as a mechanism to block Trump. This process is outlined in the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022.

Electoral Count Process Becomes Key

The Electoral Count Reform Act specifies two valid objections to Electoral College votes: procedural irregularities and constitutional ineligibility. Schulte and Davis advocate for using the latter, claiming Trump’s candidacy violates the 14th Amendment.

Under their plan, if 20% of members in both the House and Senate support an objection, the objection can then be debated and voted upon. If a majority in both chambers sustain the objection, Trump’s Electoral College votes could be disqualified.

Schulte and Davis argued that eliminating Trump’s votes could reduce the total votes required to win the presidency. This scenario could leave Kamala Harris as the default president-elect if the objection succeeds.

Mixed Reactions to Proposed Strategy

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) discussed the feasibility of the plan during a February panel discussion, expressing skepticism about its likelihood of success. However, Raskin acknowledged the strategy’s potential to provoke significant political turmoil.

He also criticized the U.S. Supreme Court, accusing it of failing to interpret the 14th Amendment, thereby leaving such decisions to Congress. Raskin warned that addressing the issue could lead to heightened tensions, saying, “We need bodyguards for everybody in civil war conditions.”

Critics, including prominent Trump allies, denounced the proposal as an attempt to undermine democratic principles. They described the plan as hypocritical, accusing Democrats of using undemocratic tactics to prevent a political opponent from taking office.

Public Figures Respond to Proposal

Sean Spicer, a former Trump press secretary, claimed the plan reflects ongoing efforts by Democrats to “subvert the election.” Echoing similar sentiments, Eric Trump referred to the proposal’s advocates as “sick.”

Other commentators, such as Steven Cheung, characterized the strategy as a “threat to democracy,” accusing Democrats of attempting to “invalidate the will of the American people.”

Criticism extended beyond Trump's allies. Journalist Glenn Greenwald called the proposal ironic, noting parallels between the Democratic Party's plan and claims of election subversion that those on the left have previously decried.

Uncertainty Surrounds Success of Strategy

The strategy relies heavily on congressional approval, which may be challenging to secure given the divided political climate. Even with a Democratic Party majority, gaining the necessary support in both chambers for such a contentious move is far from guaranteed.

Legal experts also remain divided on whether the 14th Amendment can be applied as Schulte and Davis propose. Critics argue that the proposal risks setting a dangerous precedent for using constitutional objections to manipulate election outcomes.

Raskin himself noted that the Supreme Court’s stance could complicate the plan. Without judicial clarity on the 14th Amendment’s application, the proposal faces significant legal and political hurdles.

Concerns Over Potential Civil Unrest

Another significant concern is the possibility of civil unrest if such a plan were implemented. Raskin cautioned that disqualifying Trump’s votes could provoke a strong backlash from his supporters.

Raskin warned of the potential for violence, referencing the events of Jan. 6, 2021, as a cautionary example. “The rampaging Trump mobs” could react aggressively to any perceived disenfranchisement, he said.

The controversy highlights the deep divisions within American politics and the challenges of navigating constitutional questions in an era of heightened partisanship.