In a historic move on Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision disqualifying former President Donald Trump from participating in the state’s 2024 presidential primary. The ruling cited his involvement in the January 6, 2021 insurrection as grounds for the unprecedented decision.
This marks the first instance in which a court has utilized the 1868 provision of the Constitution to prevent a presidential candidate involved in an insurrection from appearing on the ballot. Similar cases are under consideration in other states, with potentially significant implications for Trump’s chances of securing the Republican nomination and winning the general election if other states follow suit.
The decision is expected to be appealed to the US Supreme Court, where justices will determine whether to take up the case. Legal scholars posit that only the highest court in the nation can conclusively settle whether the events of January 6 constitute an insurrection and if Trump is thus ineligible to run for office.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s majority opinion stated, as published in CNBC, “A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” The ruling contends that listing Trump as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot would be a violation of the Election Code.
Trump’s campaign swiftly criticized the decision, with spokesman Steven Cheung calling it “completely flawed” and expressing confidence in a favorable ruling from the US Supreme Court. The Colorado Supreme Court decided to stay the ruling until January 4, potentially allowing Trump’s name on the ballot while awaiting a possible appeal to the US Supreme Court.
Legal experts, including Derek Muller of the University of Notre Dame, characterized the Colorado decision as unprecedented, emphasizing that no candidate, especially a presidential one, has ever been barred from the ballot for engaging in insurrection.
The ruling places significant pressure on the US Supreme Court to address the issue comprehensively. Muller stated, “It feels like the kind of case the Supreme Court has to weigh in on,” suggesting that a broad ruling could settle the matter for all states.
While the Colorado decision may influence other states in the short term, it remains to be seen how widespread similar actions will be. The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 after the Civil War, includes Section 3, which bars individuals engaged in insurrection from holding office. The provision was designed to prevent former Confederates from returning to power.
Six voters from Colorado invoked this provision in a lawsuit to keep Trump off the ballot. Denver District Judge Sarah B. Wallace initially ruled that Trump had engaged in insurrection but could remain on the ballot. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld parts of Wallace’s findings but reversed her decision on crucial points, asserting that Section 3 applies to presidential candidates.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington assisted in bringing the case, with its president, Noah Bookbinder, describing the decision as “not only historic and justified but necessary to protect the future of democracy.”
Trump’s political rivals also weighed in on the decision. Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswamy pledged to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary ballot until Trump is allowed to participate, urging other contenders like Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley to do the same. Christie expressed concern over potential consequences for the country, emphasizing the need for a criminal trial before taking such actions against Trump.
In previous cases, the Minnesota Supreme Court and a Michigan appeals court declined to remove Trump’s name from primary ballots, while a Texas tax consultant’s lawsuits on the issue have gained little traction. The legal and political landscape surrounding Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 presidential race continues to unfold as the legal battles intensify.
