Trump Disqualified From 2024 Ballot

By Robert Cunningham, updated on December 20, 2023

In a landmark decision, the Colorado Supreme Court has barred Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot.

The highest court in Colorado has ruled that Donald Trump cannot be listed on the state's presidential ballot due to insurrection allegations.

In a closely contested 4-3 ruling, Colorado's judicial authority has rekindled divisive national debates over the application of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. The court's interpretation of what constitutes insurrection could set a precedent affecting not only the upcoming election but also the future enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Colorado Court's Decision: A Deep Dive

The Court's 4-3 verdict draws on evidence suggesting Trump's involvement in an insurrection, as outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment's "Insurrection Clause." This ruling significantly alters a prior decision by Colorado District Court Judge Sarah Wallace, who had previously allowed Trump's inclusion on the ballot.

Judge Wallace's initial ruling was based on the interpretation that Trump, not a current United States officer, was not subject to the disqualification clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court of Colorado has taken a different stance, finding substantial grounds to believe that Trump did engage in acts of insurrection.

In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Boatright argued for the case's dismissal, emphasizing the absence of a formal legal proceeding, such as a criminal prosecution related to insurrection.

Differing Perspectives and Legal Arguments

The Court's majority opinion rejected Trump's defense that his actions, particularly his speech on January 6, were protected under the First Amendment. They pointed out that while Trump called for peaceful protest, other elements of his speech could be interpreted as incitement.

Despite this ruling, it is important to note that Trump has not been formally charged or convicted of insurrection. This fact was a significant point in Justice Carlos Samour's dissent, where he questioned the admissibility of the U.S. House January 6 Select Committee's report and the lack of federal legislation enforcing Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Trump's legal team has strongly criticized the ruling, suggesting partisan bias influenced the Court's decision. They have announced plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, expressing confidence in a favorable outcome.

Broader Implications of the Ruling

The decision by the Colorado Supreme Court suggests an anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court's intervention, with a deadline looming as Colorado’s primary ballots must be certified by January 5, 2024.

This case is part of a larger series of legal challenges across various states, where Trump's eligibility to run for office is being contested under the "Insurrection Clause." There is a strong political context to these challenges, with accusations of judicial bias and attempts to influence the election outcome.

Notably, Trump has seen favorable outcomes in similar lawsuits in states like New Hampshire, Minnesota, Michigan, and previously in Colorado. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to make a definitive ruling on applying Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment in such cases.

Justice Carlos Samour argued:

“Given the current absence of federal legislation to enforce Section Three, and given that President Trump has not been charged pursuant to section 2383, the district court should have granted his September 29 motion to dismiss. The court received and considered a partial congressional report, the admissibility of which is not beyond reproach… I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom.”

Navigating a Legal and Political Maze

This ruling is not just a legal matter; it is intertwined with significant political implications. It reflects the ongoing contentious nature of Trump's political legacy and the polarization surrounding his actions and potential future candidacy.

While the Court's decision is specific to Colorado, it sets a precedent that could influence other state courts and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court. The debate over Trump's eligibility to run for office will likely continue, drawing in various legal and constitutional arguments.

The legal landscape remains uncertain as the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet provided a clear interpretation of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment in this context. This uncertainty is further compounded by the mixed outcomes Trump has received in similar cases across different states.

Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court's landmark ruling disqualifies Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot under the Fourteenth Amendment's Insurrection Clause, setting the stage for a contentious legal battle and potential U.S. Supreme Court review.

  • This ruling counteracts a prior decision by a Colorado District Court and anticipates further review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Dissenting opinions within the court highlight the ruling's legal complexity and unprecedented nature.
  • The Court rejected Trump's defense against the allegations, including claims of free speech protection.
  • While the ruling is decisive, Trump has not been criminally convicted of insurrection.

About Robert Cunningham

With years of experience at the forefront of political commentary, Robert Cunningham brings a blend of sharp wit and deep insight to his analysis of American principles at the Capitalism Institute.

Top Articles

The

Newsletter

Receive information on new articles posted, important topics and tips.
Join Now
We won't send you spam. 
Unsubscribe at any time.

Recent Articles

Recent Analysis

Copyright © 2024 - CapitalismInstitute.org
A Project of Connell Media.
magnifier