John,
We just presented arguments to the Colorado Supreme Court in our lawsuit seeking to bar Donald Trump from the ballot under Section Three of the 14th Amendment.
After our evidentiary hearing several weeks ago, a district court judge found that Trump incited the January 6th insurrection to stop the peaceful transfer of power, but stopped short of barring him from the ballot, over the technicality of whether the president is an “officer” of the United States.
The finding that Trump incited insurrection was unprecedented—and Trump’s team appealed it to the Colorado Supreme Court. Meanwhile, our team appealed the decision not to bar Trump from the ballot.
Those were the legal questions at issue in the arguments today.
Jason Murray, CREW’s co-counsel in the case, explained that Section 3 “is our Constitution's self-defense mechanism,” and the idea that it wouldn’t cover the presidency is contrary to the purpose of the clause.
As we noted in our brief to the Colorado Supreme Court, “the President is both chief executive and Commander-in-Chief, so his office is both ‘civil’ and ‘military.’” Our brief continued: “Nor does anyone offer any reason why Section 3’s framers would have wanted to exempt insurrectionist former presidents. And because Trump is the only president who did not previously serve in some other federal or state position covered by Section 3, Trump’s argument is that Section 3 exempts him alone.”
Eric Olson, former Colorado Solicitor General and CREW’s other co-counsel in the case, argued that simply because Trump is popular is no reason to ignore the Constitution—and that Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy surely would have had popular support in a campaign for the presidency, but was widely understood not to be eligible to run.
Scott Gessler, Trump’s attorney, argued that the Colorado Secretary of State does not have the ability to remove candidates from the ballot and that January 6th was not an insurrection. He also argued that the framers of Section 3 intentionally did not include the president or the president’s oath of office, and faced tough questions about whether it would be absurd for the president to be exempt from Section 3.
Key Moments
“Jason Murray, an attorney for the anti-Trump challengers in Colorado, argued at the state Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban was intended to protect the US from threats to democracy like the one posed by Donald Trump… ‘Who could more easily subvert our democracy from within than a commander in chief, who has already tried to do so before?’”
“One of the counter-arguments is that by failing to resolve this issue on the merits now, we create the potential for chaos in January of 2025,” Justice William Hood told Trump lawyer Scott Gessler.” — CNN
Livestream
C-SPAN aired the arguments in full, which you can watch here.
Selected News Coverage
Thanks for following our lawsuit challenging Donald Trump’s ballot eligibility in Colorado. We expect a decision in the coming weeks and will let you know when the court rules in our case.
If you’d like to support our work, please consider making a donation today!
If you've saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately:
|