Colorado kicks Trump Off Ballot for 2024

[QvQ]

Nobody needs to be convicted of being under 35. The Secretaries of State (or whoever the state election official is) make determinations of eligibility to be on the ballot all the time.

Colorado Republicans will Caucus. There won't be any Colorado State Republican primary ballot.
The State of Colorado cannot determine eligibility to be on the Federal Ballot

 

[wing2000]

If the ruling is affirmed, it opens the floodgates to all kinds of political chaos in the US. Candidates being kept off ballots for frivolous and partisan reasons.

Engaging in an insurrection is not frivolous.

The fact remains, no other President has attempted to interfere in the peaceful transfer of power.

As I mentioned in a previous post, if Trump is kept off the ballot in a bunch of states, and loses the election, it will be very bad for the republic.

If Trump is removed from the ballot in multiple states based on the USSC's interpretation of our US Constituion, that will be a sign our Republic is working as the founders intended. If a signficant amount of American's refuse to accept the courts' decisions, that will be very poor reflection on them and bad for our Republic.

Regardless of how the USSC decides, I will respect the decision.

 

[NxNW]

Some Soros-funded judge can't simply declare a candidate an insurrectionist and have him taken off the ballot. That is an invitation to complete chaos.

What exactly is a Soros-funded judge?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

If the ruling is affirmed, it opens the floodgates to all kinds of political chaos in the US. Candidates being kept off ballots for frivolous and partisan reasons.

Only if those frivolous and partisan reasons can be determined to meet the conditions outlined in the Constitution as disqualifying a person from office (such as "engaging in insurrection").

It also circumvents some authority of congress, which is outlined in the 14th amendment, section 3. Specifically this statement:

" But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability"

The case will be made that congress decides this matter, not state courts.

Congress can certainly override the court's decision. That's what it means to "remove such disability".

then there is the issue of whether section 3 even applies to the president.

That was the point of disagreement - the lower court said it does not, but the Supreme Court says it does. This will be one of the primary points to be argued should the USSC take up the case.

And as far as the "self-executing" aspect of section 3, we have the Griffin case from shortly after the war.

The Court addresses Griffin beginning on page 56 of the decision.

As I mentioned in a previous post, if Trump is kept off the ballot in a bunch of states, and loses the election, it will be very bad for the republic.

This assumes that Trump will be the nominee.

the war is irrelevant?

Yes. War is not required for insurrection.

OK, let's have courts in red states declare Biden an insurrectionist for failing to secure the border, and have him taken off the ballot

First, a case would have to be made that "failing to secure the border" amounts to an insurrection. Legally, it has already been established that the events of January 6th are to be considered an insurrection, given the successful convictions of several individuals for seditious conspiracy.

Some Soros-funded judge can't simply declare a candidate an insurrectionist and have him taken off the ballot.

Do you have evidence for this assertion?

SCOTUS will knock this ruling down

We shall see.

 

[Merrill]

Nobody needs to be convicted of being under 35. The Secretaries of State (or whoever the state election official is) make determinations of eligibility to be on the ballot all the time.

Wrong:

If we look at the 14th Amendment sections3 and 5, we see that it is Congress who decides how the provisions are to be enforced and executed:

"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." (section 5)

"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." (section 3)

Findlaw states "Theoretically, yes. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to disqualify someone who has already held a public office from holding "any office" if they participate in an "insurrection or rebellion" against the United States."

but also says "However, how disqualification works under the 14th Amendment has never been clear."

The 14th says nothing about state courts being able to disqualify candidates, and the issue of "self-executing" is not clear either, as I pointed out with the Griffin case. The *only* way a state court could make a self-executing claim as grounds of disqualifying Trump would be if Trump had been formally charged and convicted of insurrection--which he was not.

No state court can make up a charge, convict someone of it within the fabric of another case, and then seize powers from congress in order to obtain a desired result. This is total nonsense, and SCOTUS will strike it down.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Colorado Republicans will Caucus. There won't be any Colorado State Republican primary ballot.

The Secretary of State also determines what's on the general election ballot. The GOP can't have an alternative general election.

The State of Colorado cannot determine eligibility to be on the Federal Ballot

It does in fact determine eligibility regarding age and citizenship. This criterion, the court ruled, is no different.

 

[QvQ]

The Secretary of State also determines what's on the general election ballot. The GOP can't have an alternative general election.

Even if Colorado could keep Trump off the State primary ballot, then if Trump won the primary in every other State, Trump would be on the Federal General Election Ballot.
And the Colorado GOP can caucus rather than use a primary ballot.
The Caucus news is all over the internet. Google it.
And the State cannot nullify or interfere with a Caucus.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Wrong:

If we look at the 14th Amendment sections3 and 5, we see that it is Congress who decides how the provisions are to be enforced and executed:

"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." (section 5)

See the difference?

As I mentioned before:

In the decision, the Court argues the clause is self-executing. Just as other previous SCOTUSes have ruled about other parts of the Civil War Amendments or the entire 14th Amendment.

The Civil Rights Cases (1883)
This amendment, as well as the Fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances.

"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." (section 3)

Colorado has asserted the disability exists. Congress can remove it.

"However, how disqualification works under the 14th Amendment has never been clear."

Supreme Court of Colorado has provided some clarity.

It seems likely this SCOTUS will overturn, but what the Colorado court has written -- and I suggest skimming the decision, as I have done -- is not a joke or paper tiger.

The 14th says nothing about state courts being able to disqualify candidates, and the issue of "self-executing" is not clear either

Sure it is. The provision that slaves were free and black men were eligible to vote was self-executing. Congress did not need to write any laws making that the case. States started eagerly registering newly enfranchised black voters. However, when states were a bit dilatory in extending the franchise, Congress was empowered to write laws to enforce that already existing state of affairs.

, as I pointed out with the Griffin case. The *only* way a state court could make a self-executing claim as grounds of disqualifying Trump would be if Trump had been formally charged and convicted of insurrection--which he was not.

The text of the Amendment says "shall have engaged in insurrection"

The Colorado court spends a significant amount of time on "insurrection" and "engaged in". And they find that Trump meets those (and other standards) for the clause to apply.

 

[ralliann]

That would be an interesting topic starter.

Just par for the course. Get everyone in their corner before all the facts come to light. That is what all these threads are for.

 

[Arcangl86]

Even if Colorado could keep Trump off the State primary ballot, then if Trump won the primary in every other State, Trump would be on the Federal General Election Ballot.
And the Colorado GOP can caucus rather than use a primary ballot.
The Caucus news is all over the internet. Google it.
And the State cannot nullify or interfere with a Caucus.

There is no such thing as a Federal General Election Ballot. The states determine who is on the ballot for their particular state. And of course there is also the complication that the general populace doesn't vote for the President, but rather for Presidental electors. In fact, if I were on SCOTUS, that's probably the track I would use, saying that Trump cannot be removed from the ballot because he's not actually on the ballot.

 

[QvQ]

There is no such thing as a Federal General Election Ballot.

There is a primary election to choose candidates. Those ballots are sent through the Parties. I receive a ballot for Republicans only.
There is General Election to decide between the two or more party candidates.
Yes, there is a General Election Ballot. The State cannot determine who is on that ballot.
Arizona has two General Election Ballots, one State, one Federal
Arizona can determine who votes on the State Ballot for State Offices but Arizona has absolutely no say in who is on the Federal Election Ballot or who votes in the Federal Election.
The Colorado Republican Party can decide to either issue primary ballots to Republicans or Caucus
The Courts and the State cannot interfere in the Caucus as that is egregious election interference.

 

[Hank77]

I looked it up. As far as I can tell, Trump did not attend the trial, have a lawyer or present a defense. He was not given the opportunity to defend himself or face his accusers. It seems they held some sort of hearing in the lower courts but it was not a trial. A kangaroo court perhaps.
That is the information I can find

Testimony from election deniers begins Trump’s defense in Colorado 14th Amendment trial - Colorado Newsline

There was a series of tense exchanges between plaintiffs’ attorneys and witnesses called by former President Trump’s legal team in Denver.

coloradonewsline.com

A series of tense exchanges between plaintiffs’ attorneys and witnesses called by former President Donald Trump’s legal team characterized the opening stages of Trump’s defense in a Colorado trial to determine whether he is ineligible to seek office under the Constitution’s “insurrection” clause.

 

[Hank77]

You can't put someone on trial in absentia and not allow them legal representation

some court in Colorado can't suddenly decide you committed fraud 10 years ago, put you on trial without telling you, and then sentence you --this is absurd

SCOTUS will knock down this ruling in like 5 minutes, and it might even be unanimous

Trump had a team of lawyers in each trial presenting his interests.

 

[QvQ]

A series of tense exchanges between plaintiffs’ attorneys and witnesses called by former President Donald Trump’s legal team characterized the opening stages of Trump’s defense in a Colorado trial to determine whether he is ineligible to seek office under the Constitution’s “insurrection” clause.

Thanks
I did try to find anywhere after the Civil War when that was used. It appears that a person was elected, then the Congress or Legislature had to remove that person after the election.
Wasn't used much even post-civil war.

 

[Merrill]

See the difference?

As I mentioned before:

In the decision, the Court argues the clause is self-executing. Just as other previous SCOTUSes have ruled about other parts of the Civil War Amendments or the entire 14th Amendment.

The Civil Rights Cases (1883)
This amendment, as well as the Fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances.


Colorado has asserted the disability exists. Congress can remove it.


Supreme Court of Colorado has provided some clarity.

It seems likely this SCOTUS will overturn, but what the Colorado court has written -- and I suggest skimming the decision, as I have done -- is not a joke or paper tiger.


Sure it is. The provision that slaves were free and black men were eligible to vote was self-executing. Congress did not need to write any laws making that the case. States started eagerly registering newly enfranchised black voters. However, when states were a bit dilatory in extending the franchise, Congress was empowered to write laws to enforce that already existing state of affairs.



The text of the Amendment says "shall have engaged in insurrection"

The Colorado court spends a significant amount of time on "insurrection" and "engaged in". And they find that Trump meets those (and other standards) for the clause to apply.

As I stated above, the Griffin case puts forth the idea that the disability applied by the 14th amendment section 3 is NOT self-executing.

As one legal scholar writes: "Section 3 fell into decay following an appellate level decision called Griffin’s Case, written by Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase (though it was not a Supreme Court opinion). Chase interpreted the section as not “self‐executing” in the absence of some prior proceeding or implementing legislation designating who exactly came under its restrictions"

In the years following the Civil War, Congress granted redress from the disabilities incurred from section 3

many legal scholars have called for a close and careful reading of section 3:

"We must not forget that we are talking about empowering partisan politicians such as state Secretaries of State to disqualify their political opponents from the ballot, depriving voters of the ability to elect candidates of their choice. If abused, this is profoundly anti-democratic. "The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). The broader and more nebulous the definition of engaging in insurrection, and the fewer the procedural safeguards, the greater the danger."

A loose, or expansive reading of the section could apply to Democratic politicians who cheered on the BLM riots of 2020, or to the education officials who occupied the state house in Wisconsin. SCOTUS is not going to do a loose, expansive, and arbitrary reading of the amendment

I know you really, really want to keep Republicans from voting, but this is a nation of laws.

 

[A2SG]

I thought they were keeping him off the ballot in the primaries.

They are.

-- A2SG, just sayin'.....

 

[essentialsaltes]

Arizona has two General Election Ballots, one State, one Federal

I doubt that.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I know you really, really want to keep Republicans from voting, but this is a nation of laws.

I want Trump to be held properly to account for Jan 6 and any other legal challenges he faces.

 

[QvQ]

I doubt that.

It may have been changed but Arizona has strict voter ID requirements.
The voter ID rules apply to the State Offices but not the Federal
That means who can vote in State is different than who votes in Federal
Or used to be that way. May have changed recently.

 

[wing2000]

Arizona has two General Election Ballots, one State, one Federal
Arizona can determine who votes on the State Ballot for State Offices but Arizona has absolutely no say in who is on the Federal Election Ballot or who votes in the Federal Election.
The Colorado Republican Party can decide to either issue primary ballots to Republicans or Caucus
The Courts and the State cannot interfere in the Caucus as that is egregious election interference.

The states are empowered with conducing elections in accordance with Federal law. That include determining who is eligible.
The Colorado Republican party does not have the power to determine eligibility.