Trump Disqualified from 2024 Ballot: Colorado Supreme Court Takes Unprecedented Action
The Court’s Stand
In a historic move, the Colorado Supreme Court has barred Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot, citing constitutional ineligibility for future office. The court’s majority, presenting an unsigned opinion on December 19, asserted that evidence showcased Trump’s disqualification due to his involvement in the insurrection of January 6, 2021.
Unraveling the Decision
The majority, comprising four justices, emphasized the gravity of their decision and the necessity to adhere to the law impartially. Their opinion underscored the undeniable link between the deadly attack on January 6 and Trump’s efforts to hinder the certification of President Biden’s victory.
Dissenting Voices
However, dissenting justices, including Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright, criticized the procedural aspects of the eligibility challenge. Despite their disagreement on procedures, they did not contest the core findings regarding Trump’s insurrectionist conduct.
Legal Odyssey: Anderson v. Griswold
The legal journey challenging Trump’s eligibility commenced in September, gaining momentum before a crucial January 5, 2024 deadline for candidate certification. Petitioners, a mix of Republicans and unaffiliated voters, argued that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment rendered Trump ineligible due to his engagement in insurrection.
Denver District Court’s Take
While other courts dismissed similar challenges, Denver District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace delved into the details. She acknowledged Trump’s involvement in inciting the Capitol attack but refrained from disqualifying him, questioning the applicability of Section 3 to the presidency.
Awaiting the Supreme Court
Both petitioners and Trump appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, with Secretary of State Jena Griswold maintaining a neutral stance on Trump’s eligibility.
Majority’s Assertiveness
The majority opinion brushed aside Tromp’s claim that the expedited election proceedings hindered a proper defense. It highlighted Colorado’s unique election laws, arguing that challenges to eligibility, like age or citizenship inquiries, fell under the state’s jurisdiction.
Legislative Action: Not Required
Crucially, the majority contended that Congress didn’t need to enact new legislation to enforce disqualification. Drawing parallels to the 13th Amendment, they stressed the need to prevent insurrectionists from holding public office without awaiting legislative action.
Defining ‘Office’
Dismissing Wallace’s interpretation, the majority asserted that the presidency qualifies as an ‘office’ under Section 3, emphasizing both its plain meaning and historical context.
Intent to Overturn: The Majority’s Verdict
Finally, the majority concluded that evidence demonstrated Trump’s intent to aid efforts overturning election results. They ruled that Tromp’s calls to action were not protected by the First Amendment, aligning with existing U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Dissenting Perspectives
Dissenting justices questioned the appropriateness of Colorado’s election procedures in deciding a weighty matter like a former president’s disqualification. They criticized the pace and fairness of the proceedings, with Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. dubbing it a “procedural Frankenstein.”
Unease with Protocols
While Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter believed the case could proceed in state court, she expressed reservations about the expediency of the existing protocols.
Looking Ahead
Amid the legal tussle, Trump’s campaign expressed confidence in a favorable U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The case’s outcome could set a precedent for addressing insurrection-related disqualifications in future elections.