“This Makes Me Absolutely Sick”: Colorado’s Attempt to Ban Trump From Ballot Fails

Gabriel RomanNov 22, 2023

Minute Read

Former President Donald Trump is navigating through various legal challenges concerning his eligibility for office. Central to these proceedings is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Section 3. This clause has consequences reaching as far as presidential candidacy. Recent Colorado, Minnesota, and Michigan rulings have shaped part of this debate.

Colorado Judge’s Landmark Ruling on Trump’s Insurrection Involvement

Editorial credit: Epiglottis / Shutterstock.

A Colorado court presided over by Judge Sarah B. Wallace delivered a pivotal judgment. It alleges that Donald Trump took part in an insurrection during the events of January 6, 2021. This significant finding, however, was contrasted with the refusal to remove Trump from the state’s primary ballot.

Legal Challenge to Trump’s Candidacy

A lawsuit was initiated by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a progressive organization representing a coalition of Republican and independent voters in Colorado. The focus was on Trump’s actions surrounding the Capitol attack. They argued these actions violated the 14th Amendment’s clause, barring individuals who partook in insurrection from holding office.

A Trio of Judicial Decisions on Trump’s Ballot Eligibility

District Judge Wallace’s decision is part of a recent series of rulings concerning Trump’s ballot eligibility in various states, including Minnesota and Michigan. These cases examine the application of the 14th Amendment’s Section 3. They reveal differing judicial perspectives on the matter, with implications for the interpretation of this constitutional provision.

Judge Wallace’s Interpretation of Free Speech and Insurrection

Editorial credit: Christopher Penler/Shutterstock.

In her ruling, Judge Wallace addressed Trump’s defense, which centered on exercising free speech rights. She disagreed, finding that his actions constituted insurrection. Under normal circumstances, this finding would trigger disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. However, its applicability to presidential candidates remains uncertain.

The Presidential Ambiguity in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment explicitly mentions members of Congress. However, it does not directly refer to the presidency. This ambiguity lies at the heart of Judge Wallace’s ruling and the ongoing debate over its relevance to presidential candidates. It is clear this requires a nuanced interpretation of constitutional language.

Judicial Caution in Disqualifying Presidential Candidates

Judge Wallace released a comprehensive 102-page ruling. In it, she expressed reluctance to disqualify a presidential candidate without certain evidence that the creators of Section 3 intended such an application. This cautious approach underscores the complexities of interpreting historical constitutional provisions in contemporary political contexts.

Trump Campaign’s Response to the Ruling

Steven Cheung is a spokesperson for Trump’s campaign. He labeled the ruling as a decisive defeat for what he termed “un-American ballot challenges.” This statement reflects the campaign’s perspective on the legal battles as politically motivated attempts to influence the presidential election outcome.

Plaintiffs’ Plan to Appeal

Following the Colorado court’s ruling, the group behind the lawsuit announced their intention to appeal to the state’s Supreme Court. Their focus will likely center on the applicability of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to presidents. This was a point of controversy in the initial ruling for the court case.

Legal Implications of Trump’s Insurrection Involvement

Editorial credit: Sharaf Maksumov / Shutterstock.

The claim that Trump engaged in insurrection, as stated by Judge Wallace, holds significant legal weight. This finding is unprecedented for a former president. If found guilty, this will open the door for further legal scrutiny and possibly influence future judicial interpretations of similar cases.

Free Speech and Historical Context

Trump’s legal team argued that his actions on January 6 were an exercise of his First Amendment rights. They claim that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was not intended for presidential candidates. They contended that the clause, rarely invoked in its 150-year history, should not singularly determine a candidacy’s fate.

Section 3’s Clear Mandate

Editorial credit: Evgenia Parajanian / Shutterstock.

In their argument, the petitioners emphasized the clarity of Section 3, historically used to bar Confederates from government post-Civil War. They presented the clause as absolute. They suggest that it should apply as straightforwardly as age or citizenship requirements for presidential candidates.

Legal Perspectives on Section 3’s Application to the Presidency

The debate surrounding Section 3’s applicability to the presidency was illuminated by historical evidence presented in court. Legal historians and scholars contributed insights. They suggested that the post-Civil War interpretation of the clause included barring figures like Confederate President Jefferson Davis from U.S. presidential candidacy.

Revival of Section 3 in Post-January 6 Political Landscape

Editorial credit: lev radin/Shutterstock.

Section 3 has been largely dormant since the 1872 amnesty for Confederates. However, the resurgence of interest in the Sectrion reflects its newfound relevance after the January 6 attack. This revival brings to the forefront questions about its role in contemporary American politics and its potential impact on future elections.

Public Outcry Over Trump’s Continued Eligibility

The decision to keep Trump on the ballot has elicited strong reactions. One individual remarked, “This makes me absolutely sick! There are no words. After everything this man did to destroy our democracy…” Another comment agreed, saying, “And yet again, he walks free. How do you explain it?”

Debating the Motivations Behind Ballot Challenges

One side argues, “Part of me wonders why so many Democrats are so desperate to keep Trump off the ballot,” suggesting a view that these legal challenges are politically motivated. However, others believe these actions are crucial for upholding the Constitution. One user said, “It’s obvious to Americans that the only one who has damaged and continues to improperly arrogate the Constitution is Donald Trump.”

Questions of Precedent and Constitutional Enforcement

Critics are concerned about the implications of recent rulings for constitutional enforcement. As one comment says, “The judges choosing not to follow our Constitution is mindblowing. The idea they’d rather go against our country than serve the law… outrageous!!” Another individual asserted, “These judges failing to enforce the 14th amendment… should be removed from office.”

The Controversy of a President’s Untouchability

The debate intensifies around presidential immunity, with the public questioning the extent of a president’s immunity. One user asked, “Can a president be a traitor but untouchable because he is a president?” This question highlights the tension between the support for the presidential office and the need for accountability, regardless of one’s position.

The Future of Trump’s Candidacy and Constitutional Law

As Trump’s legal challenges unfold, they provoke critical questions about the future of constitutional law and electoral integrity in the U.S. One user said, “There will be plenty to come to keep him off the ballot,” suggesting ongoing efforts to challenge his eligibility. Other users agreed, sharing their concerns about the need for tools that ensure candidates meet constitutional standards.