The divided Colorado Supreme Court declared on Tuesday that former President Donald Trump is ineligible for the White House under the insurrection clause of the American Constitution, removing him from the primary voting for the state’s presidency. This decision has created a potential clash in the country’s highest court to determine who the leading candidates are in the race for the GOP nomination.
The ruling of this court, composed entirely of justices appointed by Democratic governors, marks the first time in history that Article 3 of the 14th Amendment has been invoked to declare a presidential candidate ineligible for the office.
The court, in its 4-3 decision, stated, “The consensus of the court is that Trump is ineligible to hold the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”
The Colorado Supreme Court overturned a district court judge’s ruling, which found that Donald Trump had incited insurrection for his role in the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. However, it argued that he could not be prevented from running for office since it was not clear that the provision was intended to cover the presidency.”
The court has put a halt on its decision until January 4 or until the American Supreme Court issues a verdict on the matter. Colorado officials suggest that this issue should be resolved by January 5, which is the deadline for printing primary ballots for the state’s presidential race.
The majority of the court wrote, “We do not arrive at these conclusions lightly.” “We are mindful of the quantity and weight of the questions before us. Similarly, we are conscientious in our solemn duty to apply the law without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public opinion on those decisions that the law directs us to make.”
Donald Trump’s lawyers had promised to immediately appeal to the country’s Supreme Court against any ineligibility, which is the final ruling on constitutional matters.
In a statement on Tuesday night, Donald Trump’s legal spokesperson, Alina Habba, said, “The decision issued by the Colorado Supreme Court is an attack on the heart of this country’s democracy. It will not be tolerated, and we trust that the Supreme Court will overturn this unconstitutional order.”
During a rally in Waterloo, Iowa, on Tuesday evening, Donald Trump did not mention the decision, but his campaign sent out a fundraising email calling it “tyrannical rule.”
Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, labeled the decision as “electoral interference” and stated that the RNC’s legal team intends to assist Trump in challenging the ruling.
In 2020, Trump lost Colorado by 13 percentage points, and he does not need the state to win the presidential election next year. However, the concern for the former president is that more courts and election officials in Colorado may follow the state’s leadership and exclude Trump from states he must win.
Numerous cases have been filed at the national level under Section 3, which was created to prevent former Confederates from returning to government after the Civil War. It bars anyone who has taken an oath to support the Constitution and later engaged in “insurrection or rebellion against the same” from holding office and has only been used a handful of times since the decades following the Civil War.
Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor who has closely followed Section 3 cases, said after Tuesday’s decision, “I think it might embolden other state courts or secretaries of state to take action now that the party has been removed.” “It’s a big risk for Trump’s candidacy.”
The Colorado case is the first instance where the plaintiff has succeeded. After a week-long hearing in November, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace found that Trump had effectively incited the January 6 Capitol attack, using the language “engaged in insurrection,” and her decision to keep him off the ballot was quite technical.
Donald Trump’s lawyers assured Wallace that, since Section 3 references “officers of the United States” who take an oath to support the Constitution, it should not apply to the presidency, which is not included in the document as “offices” and whose oath safeguards, protects, and defends the Constitution.
The provision also states that included in the covered offices are electors of Senators, Representatives, President, and Vice President, as well as “under the United States,” but it does not mention the office of the President.
The state’s Supreme Court did not align with the arguments presented by six Colorado Republican and unaffiliated voters who contended that it was futile to imagine that the framers, fearful of former Confederates returning to power, would inhibit them from lower-level offices. But not the highest.
In the majority opinion of the court, it was stated, “President Trump would have us believe that Section 3 disqualifies anyone who has broken every oath except the most powerful, and it disqualifies almost every oath-breaker at almost every level of government, leaving only the highest.” “Both conclusions are at odds with the plain language and history of Section 3.”
The left-leaning group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, that brought the Colorado case, applauded the decision.
Its president, Noah Bookbinder, said in a statement, “Our Constitution clearly states that those who attack our democracy by violating their oath are prevented from serving in government.
Donald Trump’s lawyers had also urged the Colorado Supreme Court to overturn Wallace’s decision, arguing that Trump had not incited the January 6 attack. They contended that the then-president was only exercising his free speech rights during his immediate speech and did not call for violence. Trump’s lawyer, Scott Gessler, also argued that the incident was more of a “riot” than an insurrection.
Several judges expressed skepticism.
“Why isn’t it enough that, when Congress was doing a major constitutional function, a violent mob was smashing things in the Capitol?” Justice William W. Hood III said during arguments on December 6. “In some ways, this feels like the poster child for an insurrection.”
In Tuesday’s released decision, the majority of the court dismissed those arguments, stating that Donald Trump was not responsible for the violent attacks by his supporters, whose intention was to hinder the certification of Congress’ presidential vote: “President Donald Trump then gave a speech in which he verbally encouraged his supporters to fight at the Capitol,” they wrote.
The decision was delivered by Colorado Supreme Court Justices Richard L. Gabriel, Melissa Hart, Monica Márquez, and Hood. Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright dissented, arguing that the constitutional issues are so complex that they cannot be resolved in a state proceeding. Justices Maria E. Berkenkotter and Carlos A. Samour also dissented.
Samour wrote in his dissent, “Our government cannot deny anyone the right to hold public office without due legal process.” “While we can be reassured that a candidate has committed horrific acts in the past – I dare say, participated in an insurrection – before we can declare that person ineligible to hold public office, there should be a procedural and appropriate process.”
Colorado’s decision contrasts with the Minnesota Supreme Court, which ruled last month that a state party can exclude anyone from its primary vote. It dismissed the Section 3 case but stated that the plaintiffs could try again during the regular election.In another case related to the 14th Amendment, a judge in Michigan ruled that it is not for the judiciary but Congress to decide whether Trump can remain on the ballot. An appeal is pending against that decision. Both cases were filed by progressive groups, Free Speech for People, and another in Oregon, seeking to remove Trump from voting there.
Both groups are financially supported by liberal donors who also support President Biden. Trump has labeled the lawsuits against him as an attempt by his political opponents, even though Biden has no role in them, to “violate the Constitution” in an effort to end his campaign.
Donald Trump’s allies have come to his defense, describing this decision as “un-American” and “crazy,” portraying it as a politically motivated attempt to derail his candidacy.House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik said in a statement, “The four partisan Democrats on the Colorado Supreme Court believe that they must decide for all Coloradans and Americans in the next presidential election.”