The ongoing battle over Trump's eligibility on Colorado’s ballots
Since November 2023, there has been an ongoing legal case over whether former president Donald Trump should still possess the ability to hold and run for office in the upcoming presidential election. Multiple media outlets have added their two cents to the discussion as to whether the Jan. 6, 2020 riot goes against section three of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. According to USAToday, "...the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is disqualified from the race because of the 14th Amendment, Section 3. The post-Civil War-era provision bars anyone who has ‘engaged in insurrection’ from holding office again.”
Although the Colorado Supreme Court has spent numerous months attempting to ban Trump from their ballot, it seems unlikely that their efforts will succeed in the coming months. While many of the justices include members who fall into both the Republican and Democratic political parties, bipartisan support was shown against the idea that a state could decide who runs for national office. Several other justices also voiced their opposition, stating that allowing Colorado to possess a high level of control over national issues could ruin our checks and balances governmental systems, leading to lasting consequences.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, has argued that the section in the 14th Amendment does not precisely define the term “president” when listing the groups that could receive disqualification for participating in insurrection. Additionally, Jackson pointed out that the amendment “applies only to appointed officials, not elected ones.” Thus, it may appear that in this specific case, the 14th Amendment is too broad and does not directly apply to the Trump situation.
Multiple other members of the Supreme Court have spoken out against Jackson’s comments and have stated that the amendment should and does correlate with Trump’s situation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated in the New York Times that, “Among all modern presidents… it would apply only to Mr. Trump, who did not previously take an oath as a member of Congress or a military officer or a lower-ranking civilian executive branch official.”
Still, lawyers representing Colorado’s voters encouraged the justices not to deliberate on potential outcomes if they go through with banning Trump on the Colorado ballot. They believe that the members of the Supreme Court should contemplate, “insurrection against the Constitution and how rare that is because it requires an assault not just on the application of law, but on constitutionally mandated functions themselves like we saw on Jan. 6.” Therefore, it appears that they have taken on the narrative that there should be a prominent focus on Trump’s actions during the insurrection instead of the potential consequences it may or may not have on future applications of the law.
Considering the substantial amount of focus that the Colorado lawyers have put on Trump's actions during Jan. 6, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court has focused solely on whether the former president fits into the criteria of the given amendment and not his behavior during the insurrection.
As of Tuesday, Feb. 27, it is uncertain when the justices will issue a ruling on this topic. Even so, Trump’s eligibility on the ballots is challenged in at least thirty-five more states and it appears likely that a large number of American voters may become resentful whether Trump is removed from the ballot or not.