You apparently have "Pelosi logic" as explained in the following:

Yesterday on "ABC This Week" with George Stephanopoulos had Nancy Pelosi on his show where she said that states can overrule the U.S. Constitution and ban Trump from the presidential ballot. Yes, really.

Pelosi appeared on "This Week" to discuss Trump’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to keep his name on the Colorado ballot.

Stephanopoulos appeared stunned by Pelosi's suggestion.

If you believe he engaged in insurrection under the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment, you believe he's ineligible to be president?

Pelosi, barely understandable, mumbled:
[Unitelligible] up to the states. They have different laws from state to state. I don't think he should ever have been president. But nonetheless, [unintelligible] there's a view of the Constitution — Article 14, Section 3 — that says he should not be able to run for president, but that's not the point.

The point now is, again ... different states have different laws. We don't think in California that it applies, um, in our state. ... But anyway ... that's very intricate. What is very clear is that the American people want us to honor our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

So, to protect and defend the Constitution, Pelosi believes [Democrat] states should "overrule" it and ban Donald Trump from running for president in those states. Perfect "logic" — "Pelosi logic," that is.

While Pelosi was short on specifics and long on conjecture — all the while barely coherent — it was clear that she was employing an age-old Democrat strategy, this time concerning the U.S. Constitution, which is to pick and choose between parts of one of America's founding documents.

The parts you don't like? Ignore them. And the parts you like? Embrace them — or in Pelosi's case, bend and shape them to interpret them to suit your needs. In this case, nothing short of banning Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential election. That is profound — even for Nancy Pelosi.

-Mike Miller

I think this is impossible. The XXV amendment covers disability and succession. Section 4 covers how the president can be removed. There has to be a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body body as Congress may by law provide. the amendment goes on, and the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the house, their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue.
Notice not anywhere does it say anything about a state official doing anything.
The XXV amendment is readily available on the internet. You should read the whole amendment

The broader question is, should a SoS be allowed to take any candidate off the primary ballot in their state.

Those that believe in states rights might argue yes. If a SoS deemed a candidate a threat to democracy in their state it could be argued that it is their duty to protect the citizens they have sworn an oath to protect.

On the other hand, in this instance it has federal significance and may be beyond the mandate of a state SoS.

States rights is a trick issue and SCOTUS will be dammed by some either way.