Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from 2024 ballot, pauses ruling to allow appeal

[Jarqui]

Source: CNBC

The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that former President Donald Trump cannot appear on the state’s ballots for the 2024 election due to his incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, reversing a lower court ruling.

But the state Supreme Court stayed its ruling from taking effect until Jan. 4, “subject to further appellate proceedings.”

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/trump-ballot-challenge-decided-by-colorado-supreme-court.html

---

A step closer ....

The ruling
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

[rurallib]

1. neener, neener, Stinky Donny

FA, FO

[Hermit-The-Prog]

2. 213 pages! This will take a while.

[Maeve]

3. SCOTUS is gonna have to deal with this

[Hermit-The-Prog]

4. The real kicker comes on page 9

After listing the holdings, it says:

The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.

[Voltaire2]

5. Finally.

[OAITW r.2.0]

6. Can he run as an Independent in the Gerneral election?

[MichMan]

8. From my understanding he is disqualified from holding office

Any votes for him as write in would even be discarded

[shelshaw]

18. Agreed, like voting for Daffy Duck

[Prairie Gates]

23. Opinion specifically and explicitly states that write-in votes cannot count

Oopsie daisy.

[GB_RN]

33. Well, That's The Thing...

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that anyone guilty of rebellion or insurrection against the United States is disqualified from holding any federally elected office. It doesn’t say they can’t run. The only qualifications for holding federal office, the presidency in this case, are being a natural born citizen and at least 36 years old at the time of being sworn in.

In hindsight, it’s a rather gigantic loophole that the guys who wrote the 14th missed. Probably assuming it was obvious what they intended. However, lacking straightforward language, it’s left us in uncharted waters.

Since Putin’s Puppet hasn’t been convicted of sedition, rebellion, etc., it’s going to be hard to stick the landing here. One thing’s for sure: SCOTUS, including the seditious Clarence “Uncle Slappy” Thomas and Scammy Alito will have to make the ultimate decision. And I have less than no faith in that bunch of black robed asshats.

[OAITW r.2.0]

41. My laptop DU tells me nothing on your post count.

If new, welcome aboard. If here awhile, I've noticed you now.

[GB_RN]

56. Thanks.

Was a lurker for about 14 years (discovered DU through an ad on Bartcop.com). Finally joined in 2016.

Member since: Sun Sep 11, 2016, 10:58 AM
Number of posts, all time: 2,186

[Cattledog]

50. Nowhere in the Amendment is conviction mentioned. The key word is "engaged"

Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[Novara]

52. "engaged in insurrection"

And the lower court's decision ruled that he had. However, they also ruled that he wasn't "an officeholder." which made no sense.

I need to read what smarter people than I have to say about the types of decisions the SCOTUS can reverse and how. For example, since a lower court found that he engaged in insurrection, I am not sure that the SCOTUS can come back with, "No, he didn't," because it's a finding of fact. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but we've all become armchair lawyers since 2016 and something about finding of facts is nagging me in the back of my mind. I think the SCOTUS can reverse decisions on merits or if standing was wrongly determined. I'd like to know if either apples here and how.

I will make it my mission today to read as many lawyers' explanations of this that I can find.

[DC77]

58. And also . . .

I say whay’s the difference…if he runs or not, he can’t hold office. I believe this measure could mean he can be elected but not allowed to be seated in office.

Never says conviction in a court of criminal law is required. Doesn’t set out standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, preponderance of the evidence, etc.).

Let’s see what the majority decides. Let’s see how textual/originalist they go. I suspect, inevitably, historical application and history of Section III and subsequent codes will be analyzed. Historically, you didn’t need a conviction.

See The Insurrection Bar to Office: Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment, Updated September 7, 2022, Congressional Research Service. (“Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary.”)

[GB_RN]

65. You Have A Point.

And I’m not going to argue it; I can admit when I’m mistaken/wrong.

In this case, yes, I used “conviction” but I didn’t really mean it as in found guilty in a criminal case. More as in found guilty of participating and/or committing rebellion/insurrection by the appropriate authorities. So, I was imprecise in my language and meaning and I should have thought about that a bit more before posting it. But, thanks for pointing it out.👍

The guys over on Electoral-vote.com have a pretty good rundown of what the SCOTUS can do, vs likely to do. Option 2 in their analysis is something I was pointing out in another thread yesterday. Quite dangerous if SCOTUS goes down that road. And with their 6-3 majority, I don’t trust Clarence “Uncle Slappy” Thomas and Sammy Alito to NOT do that.

[Marthe48]

7. Good news!

let traitor and his supporters bankrupt themselves appealing every single judgement against him

[JohnSJ]

9. I am not confident that the SC will agree with the Colorado SC. They will argue that he hasn't been charged with

insurrection as their reasoning

[Hermit-The-Prog]

10. I am curious to see how they will twist things, given that states run elections.

[JohnSJ]

16. and I think the conservatives on the court will do a lot of twisting

[shrike3]

12. Realistic assessment. n/t

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. Neither charged nor convicted

The ruling will not stand.

[MichMan]

24. Laurence Tribe says it doesn't matter

[Fiendish Thingy]

27. Tribe isn't a SC Justice.

If the ruling stands, then any judge in a red state could disqualify Biden for any reason they choose.

[MichMan]

40. If it was for insurrection, then yes they could

[Trueblue Texan]

57. Judge Luttig also agrees with Tribe. nt

[Prairie Gates]

28. Nobody involved in the suit and none of the judges thought of this

You're the first person to consider that he has been neither charged nor convicted with insurrection. Congrats! You've brought up a completely new point that will change the face of this suit and opinion!!

[Fiendish Thingy]

32. I'm hardly the first to raise the issue

Since the initial disqualification of members of the Confederacy after passage of the 14th amendment, the few people who have been disqualified (just two in the past 100 years) were convicted of a relevant crime.

Not disqualified: dozens of sitting congressmen who conspired and collaborated with the Nazis, but were acquitted of seditious conspiracy charges.

[Prairie Gates]

34. And how do the litigants and the opinion(s) address this concern?

[Fiendish Thingy]

36. What concern?

I don’t understand your question.

[Prairie Gates]

37. Has it ever come up from the litigants that there's been no charge and conviction

for insurrection and/or does the opinion address that?

[Fiendish Thingy]

38. It will be brought up on appeal. Nt.

[Prairie Gates]

39. Surely it has come up in the actual litigation

And in the opinion, no?

Do the judges address it at all in their discussion?

This is what I meant in my sarcastic comment that you were the first person to ever bring this up. You act as if this is somethign exclusively for the appeal, but now you can't seem to address or describe how the question was handled in this litigation or in the majority opinion (or in the dissenting opinions, for that matter). Maybe you don't know, but yours is not the AHA! observation you seem to think it is.

[OAITW r.2.0]

42. Then SCOTUS has to way in. Was it an Insurrection or not?

And also explain what an Insurrection is. Just so we know for the future.

[Polybius]

44. I think they'll rule that insurrection isn't a wink wink

You would have to specifically try and sucede by using the Army against free states, and say something like "I'm breaking up the Union and forming a new country called Trumpica!"

[OAITW r.2.0]

45. It was an Insurrection. And I would like SCOTUS to validate this simple fact.

[Polybius]

46. Just because we "think" it is doesn't mean that that's enough evidence

I think it'll have to be more clear cut, or require a conviction for it. I think it gets struck down 8-1 or even 9-0.

[NJCher]

47. It is not required that he be charged or convicted

Eom

[Novara]

53. THANK YOU

The 14th Amendment says "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," not "charged and/or convicted of insurrection."

And a lower court found that he had "engaged in insurrection."

Those are the facts, not opinion.

In addition, he definitely gave aid and comfort to those who were CONVICTED of seditious conspiracy. He's still doing it to this day, promising pardons.

[Blue Owl]

11. Suck it Donny, you fat piece of shit

SUCK IT!

[flashman13]

13. This is a big deal. Now there is a precedence other courts can cite.

[SKKY]

30. That's what I was thinking, and I hope other states will use...

...this as a reason to follow suit.

[Novara]

54. Michigan's case is going to the MI supreme court

I'll be watching closely.

I had been thinking that ever since the lower court in CO ruled that he did engage in insurrection, it would make it easier for other state courts to do the same. We'll see.

[ificandream]

14. Yay!!

[Scalded Nun]

15. Interesting to see just how Roberts can twist this

after all, he came right out and said that state's voting processes need to be left to the states.

Of course that statement was made when that position suited their ends.

[TwilightZone]

17. Roberts wouldn't be the problem

The other five would be the problem. There's not much Roberts could do to stop them, should they rule in Trump's favor.

[GB_RN]

35. I Don't Think This Comes To A State Issue...

It’s a clash between section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the actual qualifications to hold the office of the President. Neither one forbids someone from running outside of those qualifications (natural born citizen and age 36 at swearing in). tRump could be in jail and still get elected. He could be disqualified to actually hold the office, not blocked from running for/winning it, under the 14th, as the 14th is written.

Please note: I am NOT saying I don’t like the decision against Agent Orange, but left as-is, think of the damage Repukes could do with crooked state courts in purple/swing states if this is left standing. They would definitely take any action they could to trump (pun intended) up charges against the Democrat and fuck us over.

[dalton99a]

19. Kick

[Evolve Dammit]

22. May other states quickly follow suit.

[dchill]

25. I guess I don't have much of an imagination...

... because I just can't imagine how Clarence and Ginni's Supremacist Court will weigh in on this.

🤔

[FakeNoose]

26. I'm delighted that this happened in Colorado

Chump can't come back and say "the Blue States are all against me" because Colorado is FAR from a Blue State.

I'd say Colorado is nearly a swing state, like PA, WI, MI and a few others. In Colorado the left-leaning city-dwelling voters have balanced out the right-leaning, rural, conservative voters and their statewide elections are often a tossup. Luckily the Supreme Court of Colorado hasn't been swayed by politics, and they've ruled based on the law and the Constitution.

[FBaggins]

49. Doubt that would stop him even if it were true... but it isn't

Colorado is about the 15th bluest state (both by PVI and percentage who voted for Biden). All statewide offices are blue and the supreme court lacks a single republican.

It was a swing state twenty years ago... but then so was Florida at the time.

[Frasier Balzov]

29. SCOTUS will find this easy to dispose of.

1. Disqualification of a specific person from the Colorado ballot must be done by the Colorado legislature.

2. Any legislative measure to disqualify a specific person from the ballot would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

3. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is therefore unenforceable.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

48. All of your points are well covered in the decision. See the pdf linked in OP.

[Blue Owl]

31. Suck it Donny you fucking piece of shit Hitler wannabe

[jgmiller]

43. Unfortunately the wording allows SCOTUS an out

The wording specifically mentions the senate and the house and other elected officials. It's a curious wording that they did not include the president in the wording. My guess would be it was excluded because this was written when for the most part logical and decent people were in the government, They assumed that if the president engaged in insurrection he would have been impeached and found guilty and barred from holding office without the need for invocation of the 14th. Sadly they didn't envision an entire party that was willing to condemn the democracy. Ignoring slavery even the confederate states would not have done what the GOP has done.

[The Grand Illuminist]

51. What about write ins?

If he can't appear on the ballot, his voters will simply write him in.

[MichMan]

60. Those votes will be discarded

Last edited Wed Dec 20, 2023, 02:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Need to try to encourage everyone to write him in anyway, so they forfeit any opportunity to vote for someone else.

[The Grand Illuminist]

61. Then the COSC blundered.

SCOTUS will override it due that one detail.

[MichMan]

62. It is consistent with their decision that he is disqualified from holding office

Their decision was not limited to being listed on the ballot, they said he was ineligible to hold office.

[The Grand Illuminist]

63. They will look at the write in ban as voter suppression

And use that to their advantage. We need a plan B to adjust the war strategy accordingly.

[MichMan]

64. In my state, write in votes are only counted when candidate petitions the state to be officially approved as a write in

Any votes for candidates that don't apply are counted as a non vote. Just like voting for Elvis, Oprah, or anyone else that hasn't applied.

This most recently affected people that, for example, wrote in Bernie Sanders name in either 2016 or 2020. Those votes aren't even recorded. Not sure what other states do.

[bullimiami]

55. I don't get all this pause ruling to allow appeal. A ruling is a ruling. It should be in effect immediately.

It can be appealed and THAT court can put it on hold or not while the appeals process runs.

[ificandream]

59. I think SCOTUS will disqualify him from Colorado but not make it a national ruling.

They'll say states can make their own decisions, meaning Trump will have to appeal those rulings, too.