The Colorado Supreme Court said former President Donald Trump is disqualified from running for president, removing him from the state’s primary ballot.
The ruling marks the first successful lawsuit from left-wing legal groups looking to disqualify Trump from state primary ballots over his actions on and around Jan. 6, 2021. The case is now widely expected to go to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final decision.
WORLD’S TWO MOST IMPORTANT SHIPPING CANALS NOW FACING SERIOUS DELAYS
The court filing found Trump was ineligible to run for president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. However, the ruling is stayed until Jan. 4, pending an appellate ruling. The ruling will remain stayed if Trump asks the highest court to review it before that date.
Trump’s campaign quickly announced its intention to file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The Colorado Supreme Court issued a completely flawed decision tonight and we will swiftly file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court and a concurrent request for a stay of this deeply undemocratic decision. We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these unAmerican lawsuits,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement.
House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY) also objected to the ruling.
“Four partisan Democrat operatives on the Colorado Supreme Court think they get to decide for all Coloradans and Americans the next presidential election,” her statement read.
“This is unAmerican and Democrats are so afraid that President Trump will win on Nov. 5th 2024 that they are illegally attempting to take him off the ballot. Like the rest of the unprecedented, constant, and illegal election interference against President Trump, this will backfire and further strengthen President Trump’s winning campaign to Save America,” she said.
My full statement on the unprecedented, constant, and illegal election interference against President Trump: pic.twitter.com/uEa85KK0lv
— Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) December 19, 2023
A Denver court found last month that Trump engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, by inciting a mob of his supporters to storm the Capitol in a failed bid to block Congress’s certification of then-candidate Joe Biden’s victory in 2020, but it found Trump was not “an officer of the United States” who could be disqualified from appearing on the ballot under the amendment.
Several voters seeking to keep Trump off the ballot appealed that decision to the state’s highest court, which on Dec. 6 held oral arguments deciding whether they needed to go a step further and completely stymie Trump from appearing on the primary ballot. While several of the justices appeared cautious of going so far as to remove Trump from the primary ballot, the surprising majority decision on Tuesday evening does just that.
“President Trump did not merely incite the insurrection,” the majority wrote in its unsigned opinion. “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. These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection.”
While the ruling is stayed pending appeal, it makes clear that Jan. 6 was an “insurrection,” that Trump “engaged in” it, that his speech was “not protected by the First Amendment,” and that Colorado courts can enforce his ban from ballots without any action from Congress.
George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley posted to X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, that “the court is dead wrong in my view.”
…This ends a string of losses for advocates of this dangerous novel theory. They finally found a court that would embrace what the court admits is a case of “first impression.” My first impression remains that same. The court is dead wrong in my view…https://t.co/lGhv9je2a7
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) December 19, 2023
“The opinion is remarkable in how the four justices adopted the most sweeping interpretations to get over each barrier. The result is lack of a limiting principle,” Turley said, adding, “I view the opinion as strikingly anti-democratic in what it now allows states to do in blue and red states alike.”
Meanwhile, University of Texas Law School professor Steve Vladeck’s analysis of the opinion found that the fine details of the ruling mean that “(1) Trump almost certainly *will* be on the primary ballot in Colorado; & (2) SCOTUS can focus instead on the general,” according to a post on X.
An important note on timing: the stay issued by the Colorado Supreme Court will remain in effect if Trump even *asks* #SCOTUS to step in by 1/4.
That means that (1) Trump almost certainly *will* be on the primary ballot in Colorado; & (2) SCOTUS can focus instead on the general. https://t.co/9X5ISk28M0
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) December 19, 2023
One of Trump’s attorneys, Alina Habba, blasted the ruling and boasted confidence that “it will not stand,” adding that “the Supreme Court will reverse this unconstitutional order.”
The state of Colorado has notably voted with the Democrats in the last four presidential elections, including Biden’s 13.5% margin in 2020, but it is not the only state debating Trump’s eligibility.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Trump is facing 91 charges across a total of four criminal indictments as the front-runner for the Republican primary. He is set to face off against his fellow GOP rivals at the Iowa caucuses in just under four weeks. It’s not immediately clear how the ruling will affect Trump’s polling among the GOP base, as his pattern of indictments has so far given him a striking edge among GOP hopefuls like Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley.
The former president’s forthcoming appeal to the Supreme Court coincides with a response due by Wednesday to special counsel Jack Smith’s emergency petition that is asking the justices to weigh in on Trump’s claims of presidential immunity from prosecution in Smith’s 2020 election subversion case against him.
