Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jarqui

(10,169 posts)
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 07:14 PM Dec 2023

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

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
65 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from 2024 ballot, pauses ruling to allow appeal (Original Post) Jarqui Dec 2023 OP
neener, neener, Stinky Donny rurallib Dec 2023 #1
213 pages! This will take a while. Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2023 #2
SCOTUS is gonna have to deal with this Maeve Dec 2023 #3
The real kicker comes on page 9 Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2023 #4
Finally. Voltaire2 Dec 2023 #5
Can he run as an Independent in the Gerneral election? OAITW r.2.0 Dec 2023 #6
From my understanding he is disqualified from holding office MichMan Dec 2023 #8
Agreed, like voting for Daffy Duck shelshaw Dec 2023 #18
Opinion specifically and explicitly states that write-in votes cannot count Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #23
Well, That's The Thing... GB_RN Dec 2023 #33
My laptop DU tells me nothing on your post count. OAITW r.2.0 Dec 2023 #41
Thanks. GB_RN Dec 2023 #56
Nowhere in the Amendment is conviction mentioned. The key word is "engaged" Cattledog Dec 2023 #50
"engaged in insurrection" Novara Dec 2023 #52
And also . . . DC77 Dec 2023 #58
You Have A Point. GB_RN Dec 2023 #65
Good news! Marthe48 Dec 2023 #7
I am not confident that the SC will agree with the Colorado SC. They will argue that he hasn't been charged with JohnSJ Dec 2023 #9
I am curious to see how they will twist things, given that states run elections. Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2023 #10
and I think the conservatives on the court will do a lot of twisting JohnSJ Dec 2023 #16
Realistic assessment. n/t shrike3 Dec 2023 #12
Neither charged nor convicted Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #20
Laurence Tribe says it doesn't matter MichMan Dec 2023 #24
Tribe isn't a SC Justice. Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #27
If it was for insurrection, then yes they could MichMan Dec 2023 #40
Judge Luttig also agrees with Tribe. nt Trueblue Texan Dec 2023 #57
Nobody involved in the suit and none of the judges thought of this Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #28
I'm hardly the first to raise the issue Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #32
And how do the litigants and the opinion(s) address this concern? Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #34
What concern? Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #36
Has it ever come up from the litigants that there's been no charge and conviction Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #37
It will be brought up on appeal. Nt. Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #38
Surely it has come up in the actual litigation Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #39
Then SCOTUS has to way in. Was it an Insurrection or not? OAITW r.2.0 Dec 2023 #42
I think they'll rule that insurrection isn't a wink wink Polybius Dec 2023 #44
It was an Insurrection. And I would like SCOTUS to validate this simple fact. OAITW r.2.0 Dec 2023 #45
Just because we "think" it is doesn't mean that that's enough evidence Polybius Dec 2023 #46
It is not required that he be charged or convicted NJCher Dec 2023 #47
THANK YOU Novara Dec 2023 #53
Suck it Donny, you fat piece of shit Blue Owl Dec 2023 #11
This is a big deal. Now there is a precedence other courts can cite. flashman13 Dec 2023 #13
That's what I was thinking, and I hope other states will use... SKKY Dec 2023 #30
Michigan's case is going to the MI supreme court Novara Dec 2023 #54
Yay!! ificandream Dec 2023 #14
Interesting to see just how Roberts can twist this Scalded Nun Dec 2023 #15
Roberts wouldn't be the problem TwilightZone Dec 2023 #17
I Don't Think This Comes To A State Issue... GB_RN Dec 2023 #35
Kick dalton99a Dec 2023 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author Omaha Steve Dec 2023 #21
May other states quickly follow suit. Evolve Dammit Dec 2023 #22
I guess I don't have much of an imagination... dchill Dec 2023 #25
I'm delighted that this happened in Colorado FakeNoose Dec 2023 #26
Doubt that would stop him even if it were true... but it isn't FBaggins Dec 2023 #49
SCOTUS will find this easy to dispose of. Frasier Balzov Dec 2023 #29
All of your points are well covered in the decision. See the pdf linked in OP. Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2023 #48
Suck it Donny you fucking piece of shit Hitler wannabe Blue Owl Dec 2023 #31
Unfortunately the wording allows SCOTUS an out jgmiller Dec 2023 #43
What about write ins? The Grand Illuminist Dec 2023 #51
Those votes will be discarded MichMan Dec 2023 #60
Then the COSC blundered. The Grand Illuminist Dec 2023 #61
It is consistent with their decision that he is disqualified from holding office MichMan Dec 2023 #62
They will look at the write in ban as voter suppression The Grand Illuminist Dec 2023 #63
In my state, write in votes are only counted when candidate petitions the state to be officially approved as a write in MichMan Dec 2023 #64
I don't get all this pause ruling to allow appeal. A ruling is a ruling. It should be in effect immediately. bullimiami Dec 2023 #55
I think SCOTUS will disqualify him from Colorado but not make it a national ruling. ificandream Dec 2023 #59

Hermit-The-Prog

(34,948 posts)
4. The real kicker comes on page 9
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 07:26 PM
Dec 2023

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.

MichMan

(12,261 posts)
8. From my understanding he is disqualified from holding office
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 07:37 PM
Dec 2023

Any votes for him as write in would even be discarded

GB_RN

(2,626 posts)
33. Well, That's The Thing...
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 09:36 PM
Dec 2023

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

(25,648 posts)
41. My laptop DU tells me nothing on your post count.
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 11:32 PM
Dec 2023

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

GB_RN

(2,626 posts)
56. Thanks.
Wed Dec 20, 2023, 08:35 AM
Dec 2023

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

(6,014 posts)
50. Nowhere in the Amendment is conviction mentioned. The key word is "engaged"
Wed Dec 20, 2023, 07:13 AM
Dec 2023

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

(5,980 posts)
52. "engaged in insurrection"
Wed Dec 20, 2023, 07:47 AM
Dec 2023

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

(109 posts)
58. And also . . .
Wed Dec 20, 2023, 01:50 PM
Dec 2023

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

(2,626 posts)
65. You Have A Point.
Wed Dec 20, 2023, 05:58 PM
Dec 2023

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

(17,837 posts)
7. Good news!
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 07:35 PM
Dec 2023

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

JohnSJ

(93,564 posts)
9. I am not confident that the SC will agree with the Colorado SC. They will argue that he hasn't been charged with
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 07:38 PM
Dec 2023

insurrection as their reasoning


Fiendish Thingy

(16,448 posts)
27. Tribe isn't a SC Justice.
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 09:15 PM
Dec 2023

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

Prairie Gates

(1,458 posts)
28. Nobody involved in the suit and none of the judges thought of this
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 09:17 PM
Dec 2023

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

(16,448 posts)
32. I'm hardly the first to raise the issue
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 09:24 PM
Dec 2023

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

(1,458 posts)
37. Has it ever come up from the litigants that there's been no charge and conviction
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 09:50 PM
Dec 2023

for insurrection and/or does the opinion address that?

Prairie Gates

(1,458 posts)
39. Surely it has come up in the actual litigation
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 09:58 PM
Dec 2023

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

(25,648 posts)
42. Then SCOTUS has to way in. Was it an Insurrection or not?
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 11:53 PM
Dec 2023

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

Polybius

(16,249 posts)
44. I think they'll rule that insurrection isn't a wink wink
Wed Dec 20, 2023, 01:06 AM
Dec 2023

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!"

Polybius

(16,249 posts)
46. Just because we "think" it is doesn't mean that that's enough evidence
Wed Dec 20, 2023, 01:17 AM
Dec 2023

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.

Novara

(5,980 posts)
53. THANK YOU
Wed Dec 20, 2023, 07:52 AM
Dec 2023

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.

SKKY

(11,967 posts)
30. That's what I was thinking, and I hope other states will use...
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 09:22 PM
Dec 2023

...this as a reason to follow suit.

Novara

(5,980 posts)
54. Michigan's case is going to the MI supreme court
Wed Dec 20, 2023, 07:56 AM
Dec 2023

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.

Scalded Nun

(1,275 posts)
15. Interesting to see just how Roberts can twist this
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 08:02 PM
Dec 2023

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

(25,936 posts)
17. Roberts wouldn't be the problem
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 08:15 PM
Dec 2023

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

(2,626 posts)
35. I Don't Think This Comes To A State Issue...
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 09:43 PM
Dec 2023

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.

Response to Jarqui (Original post)

dchill

(39,046 posts)
25. I guess I don't have much of an imagination...
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 09:11 PM
Dec 2023

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

🤔

FakeNoose

(33,906 posts)
26. I'm delighted that this happened in Colorado
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 09:15 PM
Dec 2023

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

(27,252 posts)
49. Doubt that would stop him even if it were true... but it isn't
Wed Dec 20, 2023, 06:50 AM
Dec 2023

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

(3,044 posts)
29. SCOTUS will find this easy to dispose of.
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 09:21 PM
Dec 2023

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.

jgmiller

(419 posts)
43. Unfortunately the wording allows SCOTUS an out
Tue Dec 19, 2023, 11:59 PM
Dec 2023

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.

MichMan

(12,261 posts)
60. Those votes will be discarded
Wed Dec 20, 2023, 02:13 PM
Dec 2023

Last edited Wed Dec 20, 2023, 03:08 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.

MichMan

(12,261 posts)
62. It is consistent with their decision that he is disqualified from holding office
Wed Dec 20, 2023, 04:17 PM
Dec 2023

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

The Grand Illuminist

(1,466 posts)
63. They will look at the write in ban as voter suppression
Wed Dec 20, 2023, 04:24 PM
Dec 2023

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

MichMan

(12,261 posts)
64. In my state, write in votes are only counted when candidate petitions the state to be officially approved as a write in
Wed Dec 20, 2023, 05:42 PM
Dec 2023

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

(13,268 posts)
55. I don't get all this pause ruling to allow appeal. A ruling is a ruling. It should be in effect immediately.
Wed Dec 20, 2023, 08:26 AM
Dec 2023

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

ificandream

(9,714 posts)
59. I think SCOTUS will disqualify him from Colorado but not make it a national ruling.
Wed Dec 20, 2023, 02:03 PM
Dec 2023

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

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Colorado Supreme Court di...