O.J. Simpson proved Trump can be nixed from ballot without insurrection conviction: expert

O.J. Simpson’s legal battles are proof that former President Donald Trump does not need to be convicted of insurrection to be bumped from 2024 ballots, a legal expert argued this week.

George Mason University Professor Ilya Somin made the case in rebuttal to a conservative columnist’s argument that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to boot Trump from the ballot didn’t pass legal muster.

"If you're going to throw a presidential candidate off the ballot for engaging in an insurrection through his personal actions, shouldn't he first be convicted of engaging in an insurrection?" asked Washington Post columnist Jim Geraghty.

“The answer to this question is ‘no,’” replied Somin. “Just ask O.J. Simpson.”

Somin argues that a “standard element” of the U.S. legal system is the ability to pursue justice in both civil and criminal courts, regardless of the outcome in either case.

Simpson may have been found not guilty of Nicole Brown Simpson’s and Ron Goldman’s deaths in criminal court, but that did not stop a civil court finding him liable for $33.5 million in damages to their families, Somin notes.

“The same reasoning applies to Trump,” Somin writes. “The absence of a criminal conviction for insurrection doesn't immunize him from civil proceedings arising from his role in the January 6 attack on the Capitol.”

Somin then argues the law in the Colorado ballot challenge — the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 ban on insurrectionists holding public office — should be considered a civil issue because it does not involve criminal penalties.

ALSO READ: Marjorie Taylor Greene has Jan. 6 anniversary plans

“In this case, Trump doesn't even face the prospect of forfeiting any of his property or paying damages,” Somin notes. “All he stands to lose is eligibility for various state and federal government jobs.”

Somin also notes that none of the ex-Confederates disqualified under the 14th Amendment were convicted of crimes linked to the Civil War.

“The idea that Section 3 disqualification requires a prior criminal conviction for insurrection is at odds with the general structure of our legal system, which separates civil and criminal liability,” Somin concludes.

“There is a separate argument about how much civil due process is needed before someone can be disqualified under Section 3. In my view, the trial Colorado held is more than enough.”