This column explains why a broad ban on convicted people running for president would almost certainly require a constitutional amendment. Article II lists only three explicit presidential qualifications, so most criminal convictions do not automatically disqualify a candidate. The 14th Amendment’s Section 3 (the insurrectionist ban) is a narrow constitutional route that could bar someone if they are convicted of insurrection. The piece also highlights practical complications — such as appeals, reversed convictions, and pending litigation — that drafters would need to address.
Can Convicted Candidates Be Barred From the Presidency Without Amending the Constitution?
Reader question: Is it possible to prevent people with criminal convictions from seeking the presidency without changing the Constitution? — CM
A short answer: almost certainly not. A broad, general prohibition on convicted people running for president would very likely require a constitutional amendment. While Donald Trump is the first former president with a criminal conviction, the Constitution’s current text does not give a simple mechanism to disqualify candidates based on most criminal convictions.
Constitutional Baseline
The Constitution sets presidential eligibility in Article II, Section 1: a candidate must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and a U.S. resident for at least 14 years. Those are the only explicit requirements; there is no clause imposing a criminal-history bar comparable to background checks used for many other roles. Historically, convicted candidates have still run for office — Eugene Debs famously campaigned for president from prison in 1920.
A Narrow Exception: The 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment contains a narrower disqualification: Section 3 bars from office anyone who, after taking an oath to support the Constitution, engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States (unless Congress removes the disability). That provision surfaced in litigation over Donald Trump’s ballot eligibility in 2024, when Colorado sought to remove him under the insurrection ban. Although Trump was not criminally convicted of insurrection, Justice Brett Kavanaugh observed in the Supreme Court’s consideration of Trump v. Anderson that a conviction for insurrection could disqualify an otherwise eligible candidate.
Why a Broad Ban Likely Needs an Amendment
A general, across-the-board ban on convicted people would require changing the Constitution because the Constitution currently lists only the three qualifications in Article II. Crafting an amendment would raise thorny drafting questions: should the disqualification apply only after final conviction? Should it be lifted if a conviction is reversed on appeal? What happens if an appeals decision is pending when ballots are finalized?
Then former President Donald Trump leaves Manhattan criminal court after the verdict was read May 30, 2024.(Justin Lane / EPA / Bloomberg via Getty Images)
For example, Donald Trump’s New York conviction for falsifying business records did not render him legally ineligible to serve, and he continues to appeal. This week his lawyers argued in court about whether the case should be moved from state to federal court — a procedural dispute that could affect the appellate path but would not, by itself, change the underlying constitutional eligibility rules.
Complications From Appeals and Reversals
Convictions are reversed for many reasons, and not all reversals erase public questions about guilt. Drafters of any disqualification amendment would need to decide whether to restore eligibility automatically upon reversal, whether to treat convictions vacated on procedural grounds differently from full exonerations, and how to handle cases lingering on appeal at election time.
Practical Reality
Until the country takes the deliberate step of amending the Constitution to add a criminal-disqualification clause, voters remain the ultimate check: they can weigh convictions and character when choosing whom to support. Legal disqualification, outside the narrow scope of the 14th Amendment’s insurrection provision, is unlikely without constitutional change.
Please submit future Ask Jordan questions through the linked form for a chance to be featured in a coming edition of the Deadline: Legal newsletter.
Note: This item first appeared on MS NOW and was originally published on ms.now.
Help us improve.
