A new development is on the horizon in the ongoing narrative regarding whether former President Donald Trump will appear on the ballot in some states in the upcoming election later this year.

In a report from the Associated Press on Tuesday, the Illinois election board will be meeting regarding a recommendation from retired Republican Judge, Clark Erikson. The grounds for the recommendation are rooted in the Constitution's insurrection provision.

This is also an ongoing legal discussion in Colorado where Trump also faces potential removal from the state's ballot. To be specific those pushing for the former President's removal cite section 3 under the 14^th Amendment which was solidified into the Constitution in 1868 preventing those who took an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding office.

This push for the removal of the former President from state ballots has also been pushed in the state of Maine. However, both Maine and Colorado's decisions are pending an official ruling from the United States Supreme Court.

The national voting rights group known as Free Speech for People is helping lead this push in Illinois and has also given the recommendation praise. The legal Director for the group, Ron Fein stated "We expect that the board and ultimately Illinois courts will uphold Judge Erickson's thoughtful analysis of why Trump is disqualified from office, but - with the greatest respect - correct him on why Illinois law authorizes that ruling."

Trump has described these efforts as election interference and a plot by the Democratic party to prevent voters from having a choice this November. In addition, his lawyers have argued that the 14^th Amendment does not apply to the presidency and that there isn't any legal standard to apply to it. They have also stated that Congress should decide that the incident on January 6^th, 2020, wasn't legally an instance of insurrection and that the former President was not responsible for what took place.

What Was The Result?

The AP article went on to reveal that the bipartisan board, consisting of four Democrats and four Republicans, concurred with its lawyer's recommendation to maintain Trump's presence on the ballot, citing a lack of authority to ascertain whether he violated the constitution.

"This Republican believes there was an insurrection on Jan. 6," stated board member Catherine McCrory before her vote, noting the agency's perceived lack of legal authority to enforce such determinations.

Trump's attorney urged the board to refrain from involvement, arguing that the former president never engaged in insurrection, but contending that it was beyond the board's purview to make such determinations. "We would recommend and urge the board to not wade into this," attorney Adam Merrill emphasized.

An attorney representing voters objecting to Trump's candidacy indicated they would appeal to state court. "What's happened here is an avoidance of a hot potato issue," attorney Matthew Piers told reporters after the hearing. "I get the desire to do it, but the law doesn't allow you to duck."

The matter is likely to be resolved at a higher court, as the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments next week in Trump's appeal of a Colorado ruling declaring him ineligible for the presidency in that state.