Even CNN Legal Analyst Lays Waste to Maine Sec of State's Decision on Trump

I wrote earlier about how the Maine Secretary of State defended her decision to boot former President Donald Trump off the ballot under the 14th Amendment, claiming he'd committed insurrection. Shenna Bellows even bragged about voter participation, as her move deprived millions of the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice.

WATCH: Maine Sec of State Defends Move to Boot Trump, but Suspends Decision and Gets Blasted

Bellows suspended her decision pending court review, but it was still deeply flawed, as George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley pointed out. He noted it was a "litany of conclusory statements" that claimed to be defending democracy, while preventing people from casting their votes. He also explained how it wasn't an insurrection and the question of whether it even applied to presidents.

WATCH: Jonathan Turley Decimates the Decision of the Maine Sec of State

Even Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) said he didn't think Trump should be disqualified without a conviction on the charge of insurrection, which had not occurred so he said the decision was wrong.

Even Maine Dem Jared Golden Joins Susan Collins in Blasting Sec of State's Decision to Boot Trump

The final nail in Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows' opinion may come from CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. He pointed out how it wasn't a court decision and how Bellows wasn't even an attorney.

CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig in Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows removing Trump from the ballot: “She based her ruling on a lot of documents, but also YouTube clips, news reports, things that would never pass the bar in normal court. She’s not a lawyer, by the way” pic.twitter.com/aQeMzKeAtY
— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) December 29, 2023

Honig said there were questions of due process or whether this was fair, and there was an argument it was not, that Bellows only heard from one fact witness, a law professor. He added

She based her ruling on a lot of documents, but also YouTube clips, news reports, things that would never pass the bar in normal court. She’s not a lawyer, by the way.

In other words, she didn't hear more witnesses as to the real facts of the case and what she did hear could be problematic. Which YouTube clips and news reports -- how biased and wrong were they? This exposes why this process is such a problem, and was even worse than the Colorado Supreme Court decision.

Honig said the arguments you could hear from critics would be:

1) it's not up to the states to make this decision, that's why you have all the varied decisions from the different states on the matter

2) the procedures were not up to snuff.

Both are true, and the first is why we need SCOTUS to weigh in and take up the case, to make a proper determination as to the 14th Amendment so there is one law on the matter that settles the question.