In a landmark ruling on Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court, comprised entirely of justices appointed by Democratic governors, declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This decision, reached in a tight 4-3 vote, marks the first time in history that the insurrection clause of the Constitution has been invoked to disqualify a presidential candidate.
The court’s decision was rooted in Trump’s alleged incitement of the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Despite a prior district court ruling acknowledging Trump’s involvement in the insurrection, it initially refrained from barring him from the state’s presidential primary ballot, citing uncertainty about the provision’s applicability to the presidency.
‘Election interference’
Reacting strongly, Trump’s campaign spokesperson, Steven Cheung, denounced the decision as flawed, swiftly announcing plans to appeal to the US Supreme Court and requesting a stay. Ronna McDaniel, Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, echoed these sentiments, condemning the ruling as “election interference” and pledging the RNC’s legal support for Trump.
Although Trump did not carry Colorado in the 2020 election and might not rely on it for victory in the upcoming presidential race, the implications of this ruling could extend beyond Colorado’s borders. Concerns arise that other courts and election officials might follow suit, potentially excluding Trump from crucial battleground states.
Section 3 lawsuits targeting Trump have emerged across the nation, grounded in the amendment’s aim to prevent former Confederates from holding public office after the Civil War. Legal scholars like Derek Muller see this ruling as a significant threat to Trump’s candidacy, potentially encouraging similar actions in other states.
Interpretation of Section 3?
The heart of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of Section 3, with Trump’s attorneys contending that it does not encompass the presidency due to specific language differences within the Constitution. However, the majority opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the historical context and plain language of Section 3, stating that excluding the president would be inconsistent with its intent.
Notably, dissenting justices, including Chief Justice Brian D Boatright, expressed concerns over the complexity of the constitutional questions addressed in a state-level hearing, underscoring the necessity of due process even in cases involving severe allegations against a candidate.
The ruling in Colorado stands in stark contrast to recent decisions in other states. For instance, the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed a similar lawsuit but left the door open for future challenges during the general election, while a Michigan judge asserted that Congress, not the judiciary, should decide Trump’s eligibility for the ballot.
Constitutional showdown
As this legal battle unfolds, partisan divisions deepen, with Trump’s allies characterizing the decision as an attack on democracy and an attempt to undermine his candidacy, while critics hail it as a defense of constitutional principles.
The stage is now set for a potential constitutional showdown as the nation’s attention turns to the US Supreme Court to resolve this contentious issue that could profoundly impact the 2024 presidential race.
(With inputs from Associated Press)