Unpacking the Colorado Supreme Court Ruling: Legal, Political, and Democratic Implications
Denver, Colorado – The recent decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to disqualify former President Donald J. Trump from the state’s Republican presidential primary ballot in 2024 has sparked a cascade of legal, political, and democratic discussions. This monumental ruling, detailed in a sprawling 213-page document (Case No. 235A300, Anderson v. Griswold), has become a focal point of scrutiny and debate, shedding light on the complexities of constitutional interpretation and the potential implications for political figures beyond the immediate case.
Understanding the Colorado Supreme Court: Appointment, Retention, and Criticism
All seven justices on the state’s high court were appointed by Democratic governors. Critics, including Trump’s campaign, have raised concerns about the potential for bias given the political affiliation of the appointing authorities.
In Colorado, justices serve an initial two-year term, after which voters decide their fate on a yes-or-no ballot for a subsequent 10-year term. This system differs from some states where justices run head-to-head against opposing candidates. Six of the seven Colorado justices have successfully navigated statewide retention elections to secure their positions, with the seventh, appointed in 2021, set to face the voters next year.
Examining the justices’ track records in retention elections provides additional context to the discussion. Justice Melissa Hart, a part of the majority opinion in the Trump case, was retained in 2020 with a significant 75% of the vote. Similarly, Justice Richard Gabriel secured a retention vote of 74% in 2018, Justice William Hood received 71% in 2016, and Justice Monica Márquez retained her position with 68% of the vote in 2014.
Among the dissenting justices, Chief Justice Brian Boatright earned a retention vote of 69% in 2014, while Justice Carlos Samour received 73% in 2020. Justice Maria Berkenkotter, also in dissent, assumed the bench in 2021 and is slated for election next year, along with Chief Justice Boatright and Justice Márquez, who are concluding their 10-year terms.
The Trump Case: A Deep Dive into Legal and Constitutional Dimensions
The heart of the matter lies in the court’s decision to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot. Delving into the majority opinion, Justice Melissa Hart and her colleagues concluded, that President Trump engaged in “insurrection”, as defined by Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dispite the fact that Trump has not been charged, let alone convicted, of any such charge. Sadly, the presumption of “innocent until proven guilty” is of no regard to the Colorado Supreme Court.
The dissenting justices, including Chief Justice Brian Boatright and Justice Carlos Samour, expressed reservations about the potential political exclusion inherent in the majority’s interpretation. Their dissenting opinions raise fundamental questions about the broader implications of applying Section Three and whether the decision sets a precedent that could impact any Republican associated with January 6th or expressing dissent regarding the 2020 election results. As, according to the Colorado Supreme Court, there need be only an allegation of insurrection.
The decision not only affects the political fate of Donald Trump but has far-reaching consequences for the interpretation of constitutional provisions and the delicate balance between upholding democratic values and addressing instances of perceived “insurrection”.
The Broader Debate: Constitutional Interpretation, Eligibility Criteria, and Democratic Principles
Beyond the specifics of the Trump case, the ruling has ignited a broader debate on constitutional interpretation, eligibility criteria for public office, and the preservation of democratic principles. Critics argue that the court’s decision, while rooted in a specific case, sets a precedent that could potentially be used to selectively exclude individuals based on their political beliefs.
The court’s reliance on the Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 and its interpretation of terms like “insurrection” have come under scrutiny. Historical definitions, such as Noah Webster’s from 1860 states,
“Insurrection”: A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law in a city or state. It is equivalent to SEDITION, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from REBELLION, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one, or to place the country under another jurisdiction.
Noah Webster’s Dictionary from 1860
This provides some context, but the evolving nature of language and societal norms adds complexity to the application of such constitutional provisions. Democrats and media have accused just about every Republican in the country who has objected to the 2020 election as being, “Insurectionists”. Concerns are raised about the potential chilling effect on citizens who fear expressing dissenting opinions or participating in lawful protests. The delicate balance between safeguarding the electoral system’s stability and legitimacy and protecting individual rights to engage in political discourse becomes a focal point of discussion.
Looking Ahead: Future Elections, Legal Challenges, and Democratic Discourse
The implications of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling extend beyond the confines of the Trump case. The upcoming elections for the justices facing retention votes will be a critical aspect of future discussions in Colorado but other States are already looking to jump on the bandwaggon in their derranged and never ending hatred of Donald Trump.
Michigan, New Hampshire, Arizona have already started lawsuits to keep Trump off the ballot. In addition, other states such as West Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Nevada, Montana, Utah, Kansas, Idaho, Oklahoma and Wyoming are gearing up as well.
But it doesn’t end there. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Republican run states are sure to retaliate by finding ways to bar Joe Biden from appearing on the ballot. In many ways these states have an even better legal footing as more and more evidence is coming out that Joe Biden may, allegedly, be guilty of bribery and perhaps even treason. Since the standard of “Innocent until proven guilty” has been eliminated by the Colorado Supreme Court, there is no obligation to provide any evidence to support this accusation. The accusation is enough.
As this case progresses, it’s that it will reach the U.S. Supreme Court quickly. Colorado Election Law Section 1-4-1204(1) requires the Secretary to “certify the names and party affiliations of the candidates to be placed on any presidential primary election ballots” not later than sixty days before the presidential primary election. For the 2024 election cycle, that deadline is January 5, 2024.
There’s a collective hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will bring much-needed clarity and resolution. If there is a God in heaven, he will reach into their hearts and minds and help them make a decision that will put an end to the debate about whether or not Trump is elegible to run for President a 3rd time. There decision is a heavy one, for it could litterally be a catalist that could ignite a 2nd Civil War.