Because the Patriots are not playing in this year’s Super Bowl, many of us will cheer for San Francisco or Kansas City but pay most attention to our football squares. We hope it will be a good game. No one loves a blowout and the odds are against this happening Sunday. What we also dislike is seeing an important game like the Super Bowl being decided by a questionable penalty late in the fourth quarter. Rules are rules but when something is questionable, it is best to let the competition choose the winner and not one of the referees. 

There is a great analogy between this and what is presently taking place politically in our country. Former President Donald Trump has been disqualified from appearing on the primary ballots in Colorado and Maine. Challenges to his access to primary ballots have also been filed in 35 other states. The Colorado disqualification is currently under review by the Supreme Court, which will make a decision that will translate into a national standard. 

There is a substantial case to be made that the Constitution mandates that the former president be barred from running for any office, ever again, presumably including the presidency of the United States. Following the Civil War, there was a great deal of concern about individuals who had fomented revolution against the United States returning to public office. The Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution were passed to ensure that the ideals for which the Civil War had been fought would not be undone by various racist legislatures. The 14th Amendment intentionally barred from office anyone who had previously pledged fidelity to the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The secretaries of state in Colorado and Maine have determined that former President Trump had most certainly participated in an insurrection at the nation’s capital on Jan. 6. This opinion is shared by many historians, 25 of whom have put their judgment in writing in a brief addressed to the Supreme Court. In their estimation, there is no question that the intent of the 14th Amendment was to bar people like the former president from ever holding office again. 

We live in “unprecedented” times, an adjective that seems to get used a great deal these days. Disqualifying a candidate from a ballot based on the language of the 14th Amendment has never been tested in court. The high court will most likely reflect on what it means to participate in an insurrection, noting that no court has officially determined that Jan. 6 was an insurrection. It will probably note that even if it is agreed that Jan. 6 was an insurrection, no court has previously determined that the former president actually participated in said insurrection. He may have been present before the insurrection and waited a long time before attempting to quell the insurrection, but whether these facts mean that he participated in the insurrection itself may be regarded as a conclusion about which many may differ. 

While the country anxiously awaits the determination of the Supreme Court, there is another court that is already weighing in on this momentous case. It is the court of public opinion. This is where the football analogy can be very helpful. The Constitution lays down certain rules that need to be obeyed, much the same as the rules of football. While referees apply the rules during a football game, official courts of law apply the Constitution to the weighty matters of state. Certainly, nothing is more weighty than the selection of the president of the United States. Just as a football game should not be decided by the judgment call of a referee, so also should the selection of the next president of the United States not be determined by the judgment calls of 50 secretaries of state.

Because our nation is so fundamentally divided, reflected in the paralysis that afflicts the U.S. House and Senate, any decision to prevent the previous president from appearing on primary or general-election ballots will be met with angry disapproval from his supporters. Though our nation has survived one civil war, no reasonable person wants to see a second. This may seem alarmist and overly pessimistic, but right now anything can happen. After 60 court cases that validated the 2020 election, there is still a hard core of people who believe that the election was stolen. In spite of video footage that shows violence and mayhem at the Capitol on Jan. 6, there are members of Congress who describe the rioters as tourists taking pictures.

The bottom line is that the upcoming election needs to be played out with voters making the ultimate decision. The Supreme Court needs to factor in the court of public opinion before making its final decision. 

Msgr. Paul V. Garrity is a senior priest of the Archdiocese of Boston and former pastor of St. Mary’s Parish and School in Lynn.