The Colorado Supreme Court recently held a session to deliberate on former President Donald Trump’s eligibility for the state primary ballot.
This follows a lower court’s dual ruling acknowledging Trump’s eligibility and the January 6, 2021, classification as an insurrection involving him.
Central to the arguments were the potential disenfranchisement of Colorado voters desiring to vote for Trump, the applicability of the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 to a president, and the definition of “insurrection.” The court’s attention notably focused on jurisdictional aspects and the state secretary’s powers.
Read More: Voters need ‘straight answer’ on abortion from fellow GOP contenders – Christie
Parties and Perspectives
Petitioners, represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), faced Trump’s legal team in this significant legal showdown.
The discussion pivoted around the interpretation of “officer” and “office” in Section 3, which does not explicitly mention “president.”
Judicial Inquiry into Section 3
Justice Melissa Hart highlighted the constitutional absence of labeling the president as an “officer.” Jason Murray, representing the petitioners, argued for a broad interpretation of “officers of the United States,” suggesting the term encompasses any elected position, including the presidency.
Justice Richard L. Gabriel probed the historical evolution of Section 3, noting the removal of explicit references to the president and vice president in its final draft.
Also Read: Younger Democrat voters give Joe Biden the cold shoulder
The 14th Amendment’s Historical Context
Section 3, originating post-Civil War, aimed to prevent former Confederacy officials from holding public office without Congress’s approval.
Chief Justice Salmon Chase’s interpretations have been pivotal in courts’ decisions on challenges to Trump’s eligibility.
Scott Gessler, representing Trump, emphasized the 14th Amendment’s intent to limit state authority and disputed that Congress alone could define or lift the disqualification of a candidate under Section 3.
He argued that the electoral process inherently safeguards against insurrectionists assuming the presidency.
State Law and Election Code Debate
The discourse also touched upon Colorado’s election codes and their applicability to presidential primaries.
Secretary of State Jena Griswold, initially a defendant in the case, contended that while her office lacks the power to determine a presidential candidate’s eligibility, state courts possess this authority.
Judicial Concerns and Challenges
The justices expressed reservations about the lower court’s broad definition of “insurrection” and questioned the various standards presented during the trial.
They sought clarity on whether a brief, violent event like that on January 6 could be classified as an insurrection.
The court’s decision, pending at the time of writing, holds significant implications for Colorado’s 2024 Republican primary and potentially the national political landscape.
This case, poised for an eventual appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, underscores the intricate interplay between state election laws, federal constitutional provisions, and the broader political dynamics of presidential candidacies.
Read Next: Democrats surpass GOP in Federal fundraising
