A state panel is weighing whether it has the authority to consider challenges to former President Donald Trump's appearance on Massachusetts ballots, following a brief Thursday morning hearing.

The State Ballot Law Commission took roughly five-minute statements from attorneys on both sides and adjourned to consider whether it has jurisdiction over the efforts to bar Trump from the Republican presidential primary and general election ballots. The commission's chairman, retired judge Francis Crimmins Jr., gave lawyers until the end of the day Friday to lodge responses to the latest flurry of filings.

The commission must render a decision by 5 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 29.

The challenges revolve around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits the election of anyone who previously under an oath of office "engaged in insurrection or rebellion." The first of two nearly identical challenges, which the commission decided Thursday to consolidate into one proceeding, was filed this month by Free Speech For People and Massachusetts-based civil rights firm Lichten & Liss-Riordan, represented by recent Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and attorney general, Shannon Liss-Riordan.

Trump is among seven Republican candidates set to appear on the March 5 presidential primary ballot in Massachusetts. The order that the candidate names will appear on the ballot was determined during a drawing overseen by Secretary of State William Galvin this month.

A lawyer representing Trump asked that the commission dismiss the challenges because of "clear procedural defects which prevent the Commission from addressing the merits of the claims."

"First, the case is not ripe for adjudication because President Trump has not yet been 'nominated' within the meaning of G.L. ch. 55B sec. 4. As such, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to decide this matter. Second, the Objectors failed to serve all necessary parties as required by the Code of Massachusetts Regulations," North Andover attorney Marc Salinas wrote. "Finally, even if the Commission were to reach the merits of these claims, Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to these Objections."

During Thursday's hearing, Salinas argued that the objectors' argument is based on the process for a candidate being placed on the ballot via nomination or nomination papers, whereas Trump was placed on the ballot at the request of Massachusetts Republican Party.

"That is different than a nomination and that is distinguished from nomination papers. There is nothing in the case law or the statutes ... that says qualification to be on the ballot is a precondition to appear on the ballot. What I'm saying is this: if the Massachusetts Republican Party so chose to put somebody on the ballot who is clearly not qualified — and I want to use a very non-controversial type of example, someone who is 12 years old, they're not old enough to hold the office — the position is that, as absurd as it might seem, is that once the Republican Party asks that he, under the statute, be placed on the ballot, the candidate must appear on the ballot. Now, if and when that candidate is or is not nominated, the next question is, would that person ever be able to take the oath of office? Well, perhaps not. But ... we're not there yet."