Mediaboss Marketing

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump cannot appear on the states Republican presidential primary ballot next year because he is disqualified for engaging in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol.

The stunning 4-3 decision is almost certain to be immediately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and is likely to have national ripple effects. Similar lawsuits seeking to block Trump from appearing on presidential primary ballots have been filed in other parts of the country, but no others have been successful.

The Colorado Supreme Court stayed its ruling until Jan. 4 to give the U.S. Supreme Court time to weigh in.

Colorados presidential primary ballot must be set by Jan. 5. Ballots start being mailed to military and overseas voters on Jan. 20. Election Day is March 5.

We do not reach these conclusions lightly, Justices Monica Mrquez, William Hood, Richard Gabriel and Melissa Hart wrote in the courts 132-page majority opinion. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.

Chief Justice Brian Boatright and Justices Maria Berkenkotter and Carlos Samour Jr. dissented.

All seven justices on the Colorado Supreme Court were appointed by Democratic governors.

In a written statement, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung called the courts ruling completely flawed and vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits, Cheung said.

Electorally speaking, Colorado is unimportant in the 2024 presidential race. Trump lost to President Joe Biden in Colorado by 13 percentage points in 2020 and polls show he remains deeply unpopular in the state.

But the Colorado Supreme Courts ruling means that Trumps bid next year may hinge on Colorado. If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Colorado Supreme Court decision, Trump could be disqualified from appearing on the Republican presidential primary ballot in other states.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal political nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., sued Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold in September on behalf of a group of Colorado Republican and unaffiliated voters, arguing that the former president shouldnt be allowed on the states presidential primary ballot because of his role in the Jan. 6 attack.

The nonprofit, which doesnt reveal its donors, claimed that Trump violated the so-called insurrection clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars officers of the United States who took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof from holding federal or state office again.

The lawsuit was first heard in Denver District Court, where Judge Sarah Wallace ruled Nov. 17 that while Trump incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, he can still appear on Colorados 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot because he is not an officer of the United States.

Part of the courts decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section 3, she wrote.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington appealed the ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court, arguing that a president is an officer of the United States. Trumps 2024 campaign also appealed, seeking to invalidate Wallaces finding that Trump incited an insurrection on the argument state courts dont have the power to rule on 14th Amendment challenges.

The Colorado Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on Dec. 6. The courts justices seemed to struggle with whether the 14th Amendment applies to former presidents.

Gabriel said it seemed absurd that drafters of the 14th Amendment wouldnt have meant it to apply to presidents. Justice Monica Mrquez said in her readings of the case law, she saw no rational reason for that type of an exclusion.

But Samour said it seemed odd that the presidents and vice presidents werent specifically called out in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the so-called insurrection clause.

If it was so important that the president be included, why not spell it out? he asked before packed chambers in downtown Denver, echoing the legal ambiguity on which the lower courts ruling hinged.

But the majority of the Colorado Supreme Court found Tuesday that Wallace was wrong and that the 14th Amendment does apply to former presidents.

President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land, the courts majority opinion said. Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.

The majority also found that state courts do have jurisdiction in the case.

Were we to adopt President Trumps view, Colorado could not exclude from the ballot even candidates who plainly do not satisfy the age, residency and citizenship requirements of the Presidential Qualifications Clause, the majority wrote in its opinion. It would mean that the state would be powerless to exclude a 28-year-old, a nonresident of the United States, or even a foreign national from the presidential primary ballot in Colorado.

Finally, the majority ruled that Trump engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6.

The record amply established that the events of Jan. 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country, the courts majority wrote. Under any viable definition, this constituted an insurrection.

The majority also wrote that Trump did not merely incite the insurrection.

Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President (Mike) Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes, the majority wrote. These actions constituted overt, voluntary and direct participation in the insurrection.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruling marks the first time that the insurrection clause has been used to block a presidential candidate from appearing on the ballot.

We of course know that the (U.S.) Supreme Court is the likely destination for this decision and were ready to present our arguments, Eric Olson, an attorney for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told CNN on Tuesday night.

The plaintiffs in the Colorado case include Krista Kafer, a Republican activist and political commentator in Colorado; Norma Anderson, a Republican who was formerly the majority leader in the Colorado Senate; Michelle Priola, the wife of state Sen. Kevin Priola, who switched his party affiliation to Democratic from Republican in 2022; and Chris Castilian, former chief of staff for then-Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican.

Mario Nicolais, a Colorado Sun opinion columnist, is one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs.

In a written statement, Anderson said the Colorado Supreme Courts ruling ensures that Republican presidential primary voters in the state are only casting ballots for eligible candidates.

Long before this lawsuit was filed, I had already read Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and concluded that it applied to Donald Trump, given his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6, she said. I am proud to be a petitioner, and gratified that the Colorado Supreme Court arrived at the same conclusion we all did.

Griswolds office took a neutral legal stance on the case. But after Wallaces ruling last month, the Democrat, in TV appearances, expressed shock at the outcome.

The idea that any official who would engage in insurrection would be barred from taking office except the presidency is incredibly surprising, she said on MSNBC last month. That basically means that the presidency is a get-out-of-jail free card for insurrection.

Griswold said in a written statement Tuesday that her office will follow court guidance in a nod to how the Colorado Supreme Courts decision is likely to be appealed.

In an 11-page dissent, Boatright, the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, wrote that Colorados election code was not enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection. Instead, the state code lays out qualifications based on objective, discernible facts, such as a candidates age, time previously served as president and place of birth.

Those all pale in comparison with the complexity of an action to disqualify a candidate for engaging in insurrection, Boatright wrote .

Boatright said the Colorado law requires that any challenges to a candidates eligibility be heard at a breakneck pace, giving the defendant little time to prepare a defense and making the statute ill-suited for a claim of such gravity. This speed comes with consequences, namely, the absence of procedures that courts, litigants, and the public would expect for complex constitutional litigation, he wrote.

Samour, building off of Boatrights dissent, wrote in his 43-page dissent that he worries about due process given the speed of the case.

I recognize the need to defend and protect our democracy against those who seek to undermine the peaceful transfer of power, Samour wrote. And I embrace the judiciarys solemn role in upholding and applying the law. But that solemn role necessarily includes ensuring our courts afford everyone who comes before them (in criminal and civil proceedings alike) due process of law.

Berkenkotter, the newest member of the Colorado Supreme Court, wrote in a separate 25-page dissent that Colorados election code does not give authority to state courts to litigate presidential candidates eligibility beyond a candidate declaring they are a bonafide candidate, submitting a notarized statement of intent and paying $500 or submitting a write-in petition.

She said if the legislature wants state courts to have the power to adjudicate 14th Amendment challenges, it should do so by amending the election code. I just think it needs to say so, she wrote.

Other Republican presidential candidates seeking a spot on Colorados primary ballot include Florida Gov.Ron DeSantis, former U.N. Ambassador and South Carolina Gov.Nikki Haley, former New Jersey Gov.Chris Christie, former Arkansas Gov.Asa Hutchinsonand entrepreneurVivek Ramaswamy.

Dave Williams, a Trump ally and chair of the Colorado GOP, said the party would move to withdraw from the states presidential primary if Trump isnt allowed to appear on the ballot. He said the GOP would select delegates to the Republican National Convention through the states caucus process instead.

If the state refuses to let Republicans withdraw from the primary, we will ignore the primary results, Williams said.

Colorado Sun staff writer Brian Eason contributed to this report. Colorado Sun editors Lance Benzel and Dana Coffield also contributed to this report.

Colorado Supreme Court: See Anderson v. Griswold, Dec. 19, 2023. Source link.

Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.

See the original post here:
Donald Trump blocked from appearing on presidential primary ballot by Colorado Supreme Court - The Colorado Sun