Lawsuit against Gray for Trump, Lummis ballot access ends after plaintiff moves to dismiss

The dismissal of the suit, which was brought by Laramie-based lawyer Tim Newcomb, was largely predicated on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision about Trump’s ballot access, Trump v. Norma Anderson. The Anderson case, which was filed last year in Colorado courts, was similar to Newcomb’s suit, along with several others across the country.

Newcomb, the plaintiffs in the Anderson case and others alleged that Trump violated Article 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that bars people who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the federal government from holding public office.

Newcomb argued that Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, and his role in the Capitol riot on that day, fell under this clause and thus barred him from holding public office. Because of her refusal to certify election results in Congress, and her support of the former president, Newcomb argued that Lummis, R-Wyo., also violated this clause of the Constitution.

Earlier this year, Newcomb’s suit was dismissed by Albany County District Judge Misha Westby without prejudice. She said that was, in part, because neither Trump nor Lummis were actively on any Wyoming ballots at the time. Newcomb appealed the case to the Wyoming Supreme Court in February, and filed his motion to dismiss the case Monday.

The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled, earlier this month, that Article 3 of the 14th Amendment was not enforceable by states, but could only be enforced by the U.S. Congress. This effectively created precedence that ended the ability for Newcomb, and plaintiffs with similar arguments, from pursuing that type of ballot access litigation.

According to SCOTUSBlog, the ruling was unpopular among justices on the High Court, despite being unanimously approved. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonya Sotamayor, Elena Kagan and Katanji Brown Jackson all issued opinions agreeing with the court’s decision to keep Trump on the Colorado ballot, but objecting to the precedent of states being unable to choose who can and can’t be on their own ballots.

This decision was the basis of Newcomb’s dismissal of the case, but he asked the Wyoming justices to make a ruling on the issues of timeliness and actionability for the case. In other words, he asked the Wyoming Supreme Court to determine whether his case had merits outside of the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The reason for that, he said in the order, was to establish a precedent for similar lawsuits against state office holders, in the event of a lawsuit that alleged someone only up for office in Wyoming violated the same rule.

The Wyoming Supreme Court’s one-page dismissal order did not address any of those requests, however, only going as far as to say the dismissal of his appeal fell under section 18 of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure as a voluntary motion for dismissal.

In a news release Tuesday morning, Gray “celebrated” the dismissal, calling the suit “outrageously wrong.”

“I have been working hard to keep President Trump on the ballot,” he said. “I’m extremely pleased with the Wyoming Supreme Court’s dismissal of Mr. Newcomb’s outrageously wrong lawsuit. Radical leftists and liberal elites have tried everything they can to weaponize the Fourteenth Amendment against Trump and the American People, but this dismissal marks continued vindication for the truth and for liberty. As Secretary of State, Wyoming’s chief election officer for the state, I will always fight to ensure the people of Wyoming can choose who to elect for themselves.”

Newcomb did not respond to a request for comment from the Wyoming Tribune Eagle Tuesday afternoon.