The Illinois election board made a significant decision on Tuesday regarding former President Donald Trump's eligibility to be on the state's primary ballot. This ruling comes just a week before the US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether Trump's involvement in the January 6th attack on the US Capitol disqualifies him from the presidency.

The board's unanimous ruling followed the recommendation of its hearing officer, a retired judge and Republican, who found that there was a "preponderance of evidence" indicating that Trump violated a constitutional ban on individuals who "engaged in insurrection" from holding office. However, the hearing officer suggested that the ultimate decision should be left to the courts.

The eight-member board, consisting of four Democrats and four Republicans, agreed with its lawyer's recommendation to allow Trump to remain on the ballot. They concluded that they did not have the authority to determine whether he violated the US Constitution. Board member Catherine McCrory, a Republican, acknowledged the presence of an insurrection and expressed her belief that Trump played a role in manipulating, instigating, and aiding it. However, McCrory agreed that the board lacked the jurisdiction to enforce that conclusion.

Trump's attorney, Adam Merrill, urged the board to refrain from getting involved in the matter, arguing that the former president never engaged in insurrection. Merrill emphasized that it was not within the board's purview to make such a determination. Meanwhile, an attorney representing the voters who objected to Trump's presence on the ballot announced their intention to appeal the decision to the Cook County circuit court. Matthew Piers, the attorney, criticized the board for avoiding a contentious issue, stating that while he understood their desire to do so, the law did not allow them to dodge it.

It is likely that the ultimate resolution of this matter will be decided at a higher court. The US Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments next week regarding Trump's appeal of a ruling in Colorado that declared him ineligible for the presidency in that state. This case holds particular significance as the nation's highest court has never ruled on a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This amendment, adopted in 1868 to prevent former Confederates from returning to office after the Civil War, has rarely been utilized since then.