The case questioning Trump’s qualifications under the 14th Amendment will be heard by the Colorado Supreme Court today.

2019 state law on presidential electio

A highly monitored legal battle is underway in Washington to prevent former President Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot in Colorado, citing a state law from 2019 regarding presidential elections.rarely invoked provision

On Wednesday, the state’s supreme court will review the 14th Amendment.

14th Amendment

The effort to contest Trump’s run for president in Colorado is part of a larger legal battle taking place in courts across multiple states. Those opposing Trump claim that he is ineligible to hold federal office again due to the 14th Amendment. of the United States Constitution

The third section of the 14th Amendment in the Constitution of the United States.

Due to his actions during the assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The rule states that individuals who rebelled against the Constitution after pledging to uphold it are not eligible for federal or state positions. This clause, originally created after the Civil War to prevent former Confederate leaders from holding office, is now being used to disqualify Trump’s candidacy.

In September, a lawsuit was filed against Griswold and Trump, with the argument that the previous president is not eligible for public office according to Section 3. The individuals who filed the lawsuit requested a state court in Denver to prevent Griswold from taking any steps that would grant Trump access to the ballot.

After a hearing lasting five days, Judge Sarah Wallace determined that the events of January 6th constituted an insurrection against the Constitution. She also ruled that Trump played a role in inciting the insurrection, making this the first time a court has made such a finding regarding the former president’s actions on that day. However, the judge did not find Trump directly responsible for the insurrection.was not disqualified

This section does not pertain to individuals who only took the presidential oath and does not prohibit those who participated in insurrection from potentially becoming president.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states:

No individual may serve as a Senator or Representative in Congress, or as an elector for President and Vice-President, or hold any civil or military position within the United States or any State if they have previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, a United States officer, a member of a State legislature, or an executive or judicial officer of a State to uphold the Constitution of the United States and have subsequently participated in insurrection or rebellion against it, or provided aid or comfort to its enemies. However, Congress has the power to remove this restriction with a two-thirds vote from each House.

Wallace’s decision was based on her determination that the president does not hold the title of “officer of the United States,” as stated in Section 3. She noted that the president’s pledge to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” is distinct from a pledge to “support” the Constitution, as outlined in the provision. As a result, she instructed Griswold to include Trump on the state’s Republican presidential primary ballot.

The group of voters who are disputing Trump’s campaign and the previous president appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court

The voters contended that Section 3 pertains to the president and their oath of office. Trump challenged the conclusions regarding the events of January 6th, among other issues.

Attorneys representing the voters argued in a submission to the state’s supreme court that it would be illogical to not include the president in the section of the 14th Amendment.

The argument states that there is no justification for preventing insurrectionists from becoming presidential electors or holding any other position in the country, yet allowing them to hold the highest and most risky office. Similarly, there is no reasoning behind allowing former insurrectionist presidents to hold office again while excluding former state officers with lower ranks.

The ex-president disputed multiple elements of Wallace’s ruling. His team of lawyers argued that the court did not have the authority to hear the case as Section 3 is not automatically enforceable and would require action from Congress. They also maintained that his speech on January 6th was protected by the First Amendment and contended that states cannot impose an extra requirement for a presidential candidate to be elected.

His lawyers stated to the state supreme court that the framers intentionally left out the position of President from Section Three. They argued that Section Three does not pertain to the presidency because it is not considered an office “under the United States,” the president is not classified as an “officer of the United States,” and President Trump did not swear an oath “to uphold the Constitution of the United States.”

According to Trump’s legal team, the issue at hand is whether Republicans and unaffiliated voters in Colorado will be deprived of their right to vote for the ex-president. They cautioned that the ability for candidates to appear on the ballot has an impact on not just their own constitutional rights, but also the ability of voters to effectively exercise their right to vote.

Griswold, who was sued in her capacity as Colorado’s chief election official, has not taken a position on whether Trump should be listed on the ballot. But in a filing with Colorado’s high court, lawyers for the state said the secretary’s “overriding concern” is that Colorado courts and election officials remain empowered to ensure the integrity of the ballot.

“Electoral chaos”

According to Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, if Trump’s claim that state courts lack jurisdiction to address constitutional challenges under state election laws is upheld, it could impede the state and courts from disqualifying candidates from the ballot who are ineligible for office.

Weiser argued that the former president’s statement suggests that ballots would essentially become a means for political parties to express their views, without the State having the ability to reject candidates who do not meet the necessary age, residency, or nationality criteria for holding office. This interpretation would greatly weaken Colorado’s efforts to maintain ballot integrity and allow all eligible voters in the state to vote for qualified candidates.

A coalition of 19 states, led by the Republican Party, is backing Trump in this case. In a brief submitted to the court, they argue that the question of the former president’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment requires a unified, nationwide solution.

State officials stated that if a potential presidential nominee meets the constitutional requirements for eligibility, but is only allowed to be listed on certain states’ ballots and not others, it could lead to disorder in the election process.

They contended that inquiries regarding the “insurrection clause” are within the jurisdiction of Congress and asserted that the lawsuit presents a political matter that cannot be determined by the judicial system.

Two courts, one in Michigan and one in New Hampshire, have dismissed lawsuits attempting to remove Trump from their states’ presidential primary ballots. These cases were rejected because they involved political issues beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. A group of Michigan voters has appealed the ruling from the court of appeals and requested intervention from the state supreme court.

held that a town’s move to ban all new commercial advertising signs was

The Minnesota state supreme court ruled that a town’s decision to prohibit any new commercial advertising signs was valid.dismissed a lawsuit

The court ruled against a motion attempting to prevent Trump from being included on the primary ballot according to Section 3. However, the court stated that those opposing his candidacy could continue with their case after the state’s primary election on March 5, specifically regarding the general election.