Donald Trump is barred from Colorado's 2024 ballot, the state Supreme Court rules

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Source: Washington Post

In a historic decision Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court barred Donald Trump from running in the state’s presidential primary after determining that he had engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

The ruling marked the first time a court kept a presidential candidate off the ballot under an 1868 provision of the Constitution that prevents insurrectionists from holding office. The ruling comes as courts consider similar cases in other states.

The decision is certain to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it will be up to the justices to decide whether to take the case. Scholars have said only the nation’s high court can settle the issue of whether the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol constituted an insurrection and whether Trump is banned from running.

“A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the decision reads. “Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/19/trump-off-colorado-ballot/

---

Link to tweet

[AllyCat]

1. Yes! About f'in time. Why do we have this law if no one is going to follow it?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

2. The Colorado Supreme Court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the presidency.

Link to tweet

Here is a link to the opinion
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

[Takket]

3. here is the filing from the court......

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

Well now the real fun begins. This ruling has virtually no meaning because obviously this is going to SCOTUS, but we know that is coming for sure now.

[TomSlick]

38. A remarkably detailed and well reasoned decision. A tad tedious but well reasoned.

The decision is a mixture of federal constitutional and state law.

The Colorado Supreme Court should have the last word on state law. SCOTUS should be hard pressed to separate the federal constitutional issues from the state statutory issues.

We know what a SCOTUS majority will want to do but it will be a trick to write a decision that is not blatantly outcome determinative.

[FBaggins]

41. It won't be difficult for them at all

In fact - there’s a chance that at least one of the three liberal justices will vote to overturn this.

Note - there are no conservative judges on the Colorado Supreme Court… yet three of them dissented.

[TomSlick]

44. It will not be difficult for SCOTUS to reverse but

it will be difficult to do so in a way that is not blatantly outcome determinative.

[Maraya1969]

93. But what happens if other states join in? They are going to block all of them?

[TomSlick]

95. Difficult to predict.

If SCOTUS determines as a matter of federal constitutional law that TFG is not barred from holding office AND that states may not refuse to list him as a candidate - irrespective of state law - then the actions of other states would be moot.

That strikes me as a lot of legal hurdles to clear in anything approaching a reasoned and reasonable opinion. My bet is they try.

[DENVERPOPS]

97. I am telling you all

2024 is going to be like NO other year in the entire history of the United States of America.......

With ten days to go, it is already getting ugly down in the Trenches..........

[SlimJimmy]

102. Yes, they will block all of them using Colorado as precedent.

The USSC is going to overturn this law as it is written because federal law will take precedence over state law; the supremacy clause.

[COL Mustard]

66. My problem with this is that

He hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

I think he's a horrible person who should never have been elected, and yet was, and the thought of him ever being in office terrifies me almost beyond belief, but he hasn't been convicted yet. I anticipate he will be, but this seems like something the Senate should have done after his second impeachment...and yet didn't.

[William Seger]

92. Yeah, but the 14th doesn't require conviction; it just says "engaged in insurrection or rebellion"

... and part of the decision being appealed was that Trump had, indeed.

[stevebreeze]

98. The "Literalists" will be twisting themselves ina knot

over that one.

[Lonestarblue]

114. In George Washington's day, Trump would already have been taken out and executed.

[Drum]

4. Hallelujah!

[DippyDem]

5. Time to buy ketchup futures!!

[tanyev]

33. Caps Lock on his phone is about to have a rough night.

[area51]

51. As are bottles of ketchup at Merde-A-Loco.

[twodogsbarking]

56. Merde is shit. Well done.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. BREAKING: by 4-3 vote, Colorado Supreme Court bars Trump from primary ballot

I trust Prof. Hasen and the Election Law blog

Link to tweet

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=140292

The Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, has issued its decision in Anderson v. Griswold, here. (Disclosure: I filed an amicus brief in support of neither party in the case.)

From the opinion:

In this appeal from a district court proceeding under the Colorado Election Code, the supreme court considers whether former President Donald J. Trump may appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot in 2024. A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot. The court stays its ruling until January 4, 2024, subject to any further appellate proceedings.

(The trial court had concluded it had jurisdiction and that Trump engaged in insurrection under Section 3, but that he had not taken an oath that subjected him to Section 3 and that the office of the president was not among the offices barred under Section 3.)

This is a major and extraordinary holding from a state supreme court. Never in history has a presidential candidate been excluded from the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States Supreme Court review seems inevitable, and it exerts major pressure on the Court. Even inaction would functional exclude him from not just Colorado but perhaps other states. And granting cert requires the Court to step into the thorniest of political thickets. There are a dozen ways the Court could go. And there is no question this is a big, big deal. State law requires the Secretary certify names by January 5, 2024, and while it’s possible to bump beyond that, practical ballot printing deadlines will quickly approach, and the holidays mean any review will be more truncated.

[rurallib]

8. Kind of wonder how the three dissenters justified their positions

and if it was decide on party lines?

[Bludogdem]

52. All Colorado

Supreme Court justices are Democrats appointees.

[rurallib]

57. thank you very much

[DJ Porkchop]

88. Four of them didn't cash their Soros checks.

[mcar]

7. Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha

Best news of the day!

[Maeve]

9. SCOTUS is getting heartburn as we type

[BunnyMcGee]

16. SCOTUS is getting heartburn as we type

GOOD!

[sop]

111. After all the blowback for recent decisions, the Federalist Society Six must have stomach ulcers by now.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

10. Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump disqualified from holding presidency

I really like the Deadline White House Legal Blog

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-colorado-14th-amendment-ruling-rcna128710

The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday said Donald Trump is disqualified from holding the office of the presidency under the Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court could have the final word, whether in this Colorado case or another one, as challenges have been raised in states across the country against Trump's eligibility.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies from office those who take an oath to support the Constitution and then engage in insurrection. Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace last month said Trump engaged in insurrection; however, she said Section 3 doesn't apply to presidents, so he can be on the ballot. Both sides challenged the ruling at the state's high court, arguing their positions to the state justices in a Dec. 6 hearing......

Section 3 says:

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.

[RobertDevereaux]

11. So proud of my state. NOW, plenty of others, BE SO BOLD as to follow suit!!!!

[world wide wally]

12. I wish they'd ban him from TV too!

[onetexan]

40. From all media if thats possible

Wishful thinking.

[underpants]

13. Wow. I didn't expect that

[bigmonk]

14. I'm sure

I'm sure the Supreme Court would no trouble declaring the Constitution to be unconstitutional.

[ananda]

37. Yup

This just made my whole fucking year!

[Blue Owl]

15. Now we're fucking talking

[radicalleft]

17. States Rights...

amiright RW knuckledraggers?

[LNM]

18. So will his 3 appointees recuse themselves? Nt

[Orrex]

24. Au contraire! They'll declare him president-for-life by fiat.

[Justice matters.]

101. Au contraire! The federalistsocieters-funded-by-the-kochs will agree with CO.

the kcochs don't want drumph and the federalist-society they fund wants desatan.

[Orrex]

120. Ugh. Which to hope for?

It's like having to decide which dogshit sandwich will be served.

[Bengus81]

127. For some reason the Kochs wanted Lillie Wu to be the Mayor of Wichita

They sent her $600-$700,000 for her campaign. They want something here,not sure what.

[Warpy]

19. Hooray! NM's effort to get him off may now proceed apace

It's been moving at a glacial speed.

It's only 5 electoral votes, it's the principle of the thing.

[calimary]

60. Hey, those start adding up.

Colorado has 10 electoral votes. Add a few more, and then a few more, and pretty soon you’re talking real numbers.

[Captain Zero]

136. Votes add up for Biden

And keep Trump below 272 EVs.

[AdamGG]

20. Minnesota and one other state decided the other way on this, so....

Are there enough states considering this where it could deny Dump enough delegates to get the Rethuglican nomination? If it doesn't, the only states to keep him off the ballot will probably be blue states that he won't carry in the general election anyway, so it only matters if it helps deny him the nomination.

[qwlauren35]

21. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's 10 electoral votes he can't get.

Please, please, please let other states do this.

[melm00se]

22. here is the ruling/opinion

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

The salient part:

"A majority of the court holds that President rump is disqualified from holding the office of the President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because he is disqualified it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot".

Off we go the Supreme Court.

I will be reading the ruling and will comment further when done.

[SoFlaBro]

23. About time that he got legally kicked up his fucking ass.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

25. His name won't appear on the ballot, but it can still be written in. {edited}

Last edited Wed Dec 20, 2023, 09:13 AM - Edit history (1)

ETA, in light of replies:

Yeah, but the write-in votes won't count. Thanks for the replies, and good morning.

[TwilightZone]

29. Wouldn't matter.

The ruling says write-in votes would not be counted.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

108. Thanks. I had no time to go through the opinion. NT

[MyOwnPeace]

42. Hell, half of his voters

Couldn’t spell his name even if you spotted them the Tr!!!!

[orangecrush]

47. Hahahahaha

[Prairie Gates]

70. Write-in votes for him won't be counted - stated explicitly in the opinion

Read the opinion.

Of course, his name can physically be written in, so I guess you're technically correct.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

106. TL; DR, especially since I had just sat down for dinner. Thanks. NT

[Prairie Gates]

112. Ah, you stated your point with such supreme authority and confidence

that I thought you'd at least skimmed the main points.

Cheers!

[Dave Bowman]

26. Oh wow, never saw that coming.

I hope that it will snowball and that many other states do the same.

[flashman13]

27. This is going to drive the orange loon right over the edge.

[Kid Berwyn]

28. Violent traitors have no place in public office.

Good riddance.

[Comfortably_Numb]

30. Cue the whine fest on Faux state television tonight. I'd never know cuz I never watch the motherfuckers.

[durablend]

31. Let the pouty party begin....

[eggplant]

32. I think this is great, but...

...the election they are barring him from isn't the presidential election, it's the Republican primary.

I would have expected the ruling to be that he was barred from the general. I can't be the only person who has thought of this. What am I missing?

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

45. If he's not on the ballot for the primary

...and the ruling states that write-in votes will be disqualified, then he can't become the candidate for the ballot in the general election.

So it effectively does remove him from the November ballot in Colorado.

[24601]

121. It's not necessary to be on the ballot for a state's primary to be on that state's general election ballot.

For Example, President Biden isn't on the NH primary ballot because of our shuffled primary priorities. But after he wins the nomination, he will be on the general election ballot.

https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2023/10/27/as-biden-skips-nh-primary-democrats-plan-a-write-in-campaign-anyway/

[FBaggins]

130. True - but the decision probably deals with that

They’re saying that he can’t be on the primary ballot because he can’t be president. It’s easy enough to infer that he therefore cannot be on the general election ballot either.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

34. Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off the state's 2024 ballot for violating the U.S. Constitution

Link to tweet

[ificandream]

35. Party time!

[Deb]

36. What a beautiful thing

thanks for posting!

[0rganism]

39. the proverbial turd just struck the proverbial fanblade

Not like the decision itself would come as a huge surprise, it's been pending for a while, but it has indeed arrived now. Commence the widespread splattering. Anyone's guess how this plays out now.

[prodigitalson]

43. my bet is that SCOTUS will allow him on the ballot with a concurring majority of all kinds of opinions

some agreeing with the district court and some saying he didn't engage in insurrection (or at least hadn't been adjudicated as such)

[perdita9]

46. Nice to see there's at least ONE court willing to stand up to Trump

The Orange Menace has shown America to have an unequal system of justice as judge after judge seems incapable of applying the rule of law to this narcissistic spoiled man child. Thank you, Colorado

[malthaussen]

48. Well, that should be interesting.

Unless the USSC decides to punt, which they may well do (it would be the prudent thing to do), they'll be in the position of determining once and for all if 6 January was an "insurrection" or not. Should make for some convoluted legal reasoning if they decide that it was not. If they decide it is, then every state in the Union has free rein to block his candidacy.

-- Mal

[hay rick]

49. We live in interesting times. nt

[orangecrush]

50. Great news

The RWNJ heads exploding will be like fireworks

[moonshinegnomie]

53. the comments on faux news's website are amusing...

[AKwannabe]

54. K&R

[Fiendish Thingy]

55. Almost certain to be overturned before the primary.

If not, prepare for Biden to be removed from the ballot in several Red states.

[FBaggins]

59. Yes - and thus likely a bad thing

Particularly if one or more liberal justices backs the ruling.

I don’t agree on the second statement… but my wife just pointed me to the TX LtGov saying that TX could remove Biden if it sticks.

[Prairie Gates]

71. "likely a bad thing"

Isn't everything?

[John Shaft]

118. No, they cannot

President Biden did not foment insurrection against the United States.

I keep smelling people trying to draw an equivalence here that does not exist based on actual facts.

[FBaggins]

119. Correct - they cannot. But they could if this ruling stands

All it takes is a court that believes that some conduct constitutes rebellion or insurrection.

I don’t doubt that they can find a judge who will say that the current border crisis constitutes an “invasion”

[EndlessWire]

69. I'm not sure about that.

Biden hasn't been a participant in an insurrection. The lower court in Colorado stated that Trump had, based on presented evidence, and then gave a dicey opinion and kicked it upstairs. So, I think they would have to come up with some other excuse other than, "We just don't like you."

But, I do agree, the risk is there.

[Fiendish Thingy]

74. Without requiring a conviction by a jury, a judge's opinion can be based on anything.

“Biden is a communist who is destroying Democracy “

That’s why the ruling will not stand.

[EndlessWire]

80. Well, conviction is not required in this case.

It's based on that Article 3. I'm not arguing that the SC won't find an excuse to overturn it, but they will have to declare him as not having been an insurrectionist. That's going to be hard to do, IMO. It would be easier for them to simply decline to hear it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

84. Reality, due process and precedent say that a conviction *is* required.

All disqualifications since the initial wave of Confederates disqualified after passage of the 14th amendment, including just two in the past 100 years, required relevant convictions.

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

[EndlessWire]

90. Well, Katyal and Luttig say differently.

My money's on their analysis. Besides, can you see these guys arguing against the likes of Trump's strip mall attorney's? No contest. Of course, that doesn't mean the SC must listen.

[oldsoftie]

76. Yes, without a conviction I dont see it standing.

Maybe there will BE a conviction before Nov?

[Fiendish Thingy]

78. Could be by summer

Once Convicted, I expect to see a wave of states disqualifying him.

[FBaggins]

86. How?

How can he be convicted of something he hasn’t been indicted on yet?

[Fiendish Thingy]

87. Smith's J6 trial

Scheduled to start in March, Smith projected needing 21 days to complete the trial.

A conviction on those charges would establish, via due process, a relevant legal finding of fact from which Trump could be disqualified.

The most recent person disqualified, Couy Griffin, was convicted of misdemeanour trespassing on January 6, and didn’t even enter the Capitol, IIRC.

[EndlessWire]

91. There is already a legal finding of fact

by two Colorado courts. There has been due process.

[SlimJimmy]

104. Facts based on no conviction, which is required.

[EndlessWire]

107. No conviction is required

for the 14A Section 3 to apply. Two courts held trials or hearings and stated that he participated in an insurrection, and that it automatically attached. He's screwed unless they want to contrive new meanings to words. I have no belief in the SC anymore, and it could go 50/50, but no conviction is required.

[oldsoftie]

110. It may not be REQUIRED but I still think there should BE one.

Otherwise we've opened a can that'll never be closed & EVERY republican controlled state will try to find a higher court to rule against ANY Democrat running for even the House or Senate

[SlimJimmy]

133. So, your'e okay with a few witnesses testifying against you, then you're sentenced to prison?

A conviction may to be specifically required, but it is strongly implied.

[EndlessWire]

134. This is a matter

of whether a guy is qualified to appear on a ballot. It is NOT a criminal matter where he can be sent to jail. If part of that determination stands on whether he committed a criminal act as narrowly stated under this section, then judges who have been presented with evidence in a trial are qualified to make that decision.

Trump also satisfies that part about giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists.

[SlimJimmy]

135. State judges, even a supreme court, do not have the final say concerning

federal law. How they can opine using state law concerning a federal statute is beyond me. Do you have an answer for that one?

[Novara]

116. No. A conviction isn't needed

Read the important part: "engaged in insurrection or rebellion."

That's exactly what he did.

https://deanobeidallah.substack.com/p/barring-trump-from-ballot-is-not

snip:

First, the court addressed if Jan 6 was an “insurrection” as contemplated by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In the earlier lower court trial in this case--where Trump’s lawyers participated, called witnesses, introduced evidence etc.--the judge looked at the historical meaning of “insurrection” at the time the 14th Amendment was drafted. Judge Sarah Wallace then concluded that “an insurrection as used in Section Three is (1) a public use of force or threat of force (2) by a group of people (3) to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States.” The Supreme Court affirmed that ruling noting there was ample evidence to support that conclusion that the goal of the Jan 6 insurrection was to prevent Congress from certifying President Biden’s victory on that date.

Next, the question was whether Trump “engaged” in that insurrection within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. The Colorado Supreme Court noted that the US Attorney General at the time of the 14th Amendment was drafted, Henry Stanbery, explained that a person could have “engaged” in an insurrection even if the person had not “levied war” or “take arms.” Rather, Stanbery opined that “when individuals acting in their official capacities act “in the furtherance of the common unlawful purpose” or do “any overt act for the purpose of promoting the rebellion,” they have “engaged” in insurrection or rebellion for Section Three disqualification purposes.

The court then detailed Trump’s overt acts that he took for several months to build support for the Jan 6 insurrection, beginning with Trump refusing to accept the election results, spewing lies about the election being stolen to calling his supporters to Washington DC for a “wild” time on Jan 6. The court also laid out how on Jan 6, Trump incited the crowd to head to the Capitol to “stop the steal,” knowing they were angry and many were armed. And the court gave great weight to the fact that during the Jan 6 insurrection, “Trump took no action to put an end to the violence. To the contrary, as mentioned above, when told that the mob was chanting, “Hang Mike Pence,” President Trump responded that perhaps the Vice President deserved to be hanged.”

In sum, the court concluded: “Trump fully intended to—and did—aid or further the insurrectionists’ common unlawful purpose of preventing the peaceful transfer of power in this country. He exhorted them to fight to prevent the certification of the 2020 presidential election. He personally took action to try to stop the certification. And for many hours, he and his supporters succeeded in halting that process. For these reasons, we conclude that the record fully supports the district court’s finding that President Trump engaged in insurrection within the meaning of Section Three.”

Finally, came the legal question of whether Section 3 applies to a President given that this constitutional provision expressly notes its applicability to members of Congress and members of any State legislature but not the office of President. Section 3 does, however, state it also applies to any “officer of the United States.”

The trial judge had concluded that Section 3 didn’t apply to a President. However, the Colorado Supreme Court rejected that interpretation instead finding that “the clear purpose of Section Three” was “to ensure that disloyal officers could never again play a role in governing the country.” The court added, “The drafters of Section Three were motivated by a sense of betrayal; that is, by the existence of a broken oath, not by the type of officer who broke it.”

The court powerfully and rightly concluded: “A construction of Section Three that would nevertheless allow a former President who broke his oath, not only to participate in the government again but to run for and hold the highest office in the land, is flatly unfaithful to the Section’s purpose.”

It flies in the face of common sense that the framers of the 14th Amendment would declare that if you engage in an insurrection, you are banned from office—that is, unless you are the President and in that case, insurrection all you want!

However, the key takeaway from this ruling is not banning Trump from the ballot. Rather, it’s that this state Supreme Court ruled Trump is “disqualified from holding the office of President under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.” As a result of being ineligible to hold office, he is banned from the ballot. That also means if Trump were written in on the ballot by his supporters, he still would not be certified as the winner of the state’s election because he is ineligible to serve.

[Tarc]

100. Silly fearmongering

That adds nothing to the discussion. There's no rational basis for a Biden removal, and such an attempt would be easily rebuffed by the courts.

[NBachers]

58. SCOTUS?? Wait a minuite- What about hair on fire whirling maggots shrieking States Rights States Rights States Rights

[dchill]

61. I'm pretty sure they mean CONFEDERATE States' rights.

[Maxheader]

62. Gutless Supremes..

Will rule the worthless pos didn't cause the insurrection.

[GreenWave]

63. 2 opposing things here.

1. IQ 45 has not been found guilty of insurrection yet. It possibly could be argued that he failed to protect the USA from an insurrection.

2. Other Trump co-conspirators are running for office and some even holding office, right GOP House members and several senators?

[ancianita]

64. TRUMP'S TEN ELECTORAL VOTES DOWN.

And counting.

Don't forget that Neal Katyal (whose last Moore v Harper oral argument before SCOTUS won the case) and Michael Luttig said they are willing to argue this particular case together before SCOTUS.

When SCOTUS rules that the CO Supreme Court and Appeals court made FACTUAL findings, their ruling will hold across all 50 states. What a burden will be lifted from the country.

Trump's only calculus for 2024 will be how much jail time he faces.

[EndlessWire]

72. Can you explain

a bit more about your paragraph two? We are talking about the finding that Trump participated in the insurrection?

[ancianita]

115. I'm reporting

what Michael Luttig and Neal Katyal said to Nicolle Wallace about the 14th Sec 3 hitting SCOTUS. Luttig said that whatever SCOTUS ruled for CO, which he said was the perfect test case, would hold for all 50 states, no exceptions. When Katyal said he'd orally argue the case in a heartbeat, he'd love to have Luttig by his side.

The CO SC ruling pretty much explains itself:

We affirm in part and reverse in part. We hold as
follows:
The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump's
status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three.
Indeed, the
Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating
whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under
Section Three.
Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section
Three's disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that
sense, self-executing.
Judicial review of President Trump's eligibility for office under Section
Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.

Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone
who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court
committed reversible error.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of
Congress's January 6 Report into evidence at trial.
The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an "insurrection.
The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump
"engaged in" that insurrection through his personal actions.
President Trump's speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment.
15
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.

Here is its background on the FACTS, which made the ruling a "factual finding," according to Glenn Kirschner, which means that any Appellate agrees with state level factual findings, and so two courts will be in agreement on this ruling when it gets to SCOTUS:

I. Background
48
On November 8, 2016, President Trump was elected as the forty-fifth
President of the United States. He served in that role for four years.
49
On November 7, 2020, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., was elected as the forty-sixth
President of the United States. President Trump refused to accept the results, but
President Biden now occupies the office of the President.
910
On December 14, 2020, the Electoral College officially confirmed the results:
306 electoral votes for President Biden; 232 for President Trump. President Trump
continued to challenge the outcome, both in the courts and in the media.
411
On January 6, 2021, pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, U.S. Const.
amend. XII, and the Electoral Count Act, 3 U.S.C. $ 15, Congress convened a joint
session to certify the Electoral College votes. President Trump held a rally that
morning at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. at which he, along with several others,

P 10

spoke to the attendees. In his speech, which began around noon, President Trump
persisted in rejecting the election results, telling his supporters that "[we won in
a landslide" and "we will never concede." He urged his supporters to
"confront
this egregious assault on our democracy";
"walk down to the Capitol ... [and]
show strength"; and that if they did not "fight like hell, [they would] not … have
a country anymore."
Before his speech ended, portions of the crowd began
moving toward the Capitol. Below, we discuss additional facts regarding the
events of January 6, as relevant to the legal issues before us.
112
Just before 4 a.m. the next morning, January 7, 2021, Vice President Michael
R. Pence certified the electoral votes, officially confirming President Biden as
President-elect of the United States.
{13
President Trump now seeks the Colorado Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination.

New Mexico made a similar ruling re Couy Griffith, and now comes Colorado with the statement of the actual facts. Trump took an oath, then in sending the crowd to stop Pence and the electoral count, fomented a rebellion/insurrection.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/19/us/politics/colorado-supreme-court-decision.html

[ShazzieB]

77. Wow!

Katyal and Luttig would be a dynamic duo for sure!

[Silent Type]

65. Assuming SCOTUS upholds Colorado ruling and several other states do same,

GOPers will likely nominate someone else like Haley. I think we can beat trump easier than say Haley, but the risk of trump winning election is frightening. Haley would not be much better.

[Bludogdem]

67. The U. S. Supreme Court

is going to have a problem with the absence of tfg being charged with insurrection, tried by a jury of his peers , and convicted by a jury of his peers. Section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn’t nullify that responsibility.

[DC77]

82. Too bad these conservative . . .

politicians in robes don’t believe in originalism.
The Constitution sets no such test. The word “convicted” does not appear in Article Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. It says disability can be removed by 2/3 vote of the house, but nothing about tried in a criminal court and found guilty. It also says “aid and comfort” is a disqualification. So no reasonable doubt test, no preponderance of the evidence, no what does Congress vote specific to that.

I think they will go back to historical debates on this. I would love if a majority were to agree that Donald J. Trump is barred, but I am with you that may not happen.

[Bludogdem]

132. There is still the originalism

of “officer of the United States “.

The officer question
Comes down to the precise term used in section 3. “Officer of the United States”.

In Federalist number 69 Hamilton clearly distinguishes the the difference between “officer of the United States” and “officer” as President.

According to Hamilton the President is an officer elected by the people and the President appoints officers of the United States.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp

The president, though an officer by way of election by the people, is not an “officer of the United States “, the precise term used in section 3.

[TwilightZone]

94. Section 3 doesn't require a conviction

"Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary."

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

[SlimJimmy]

105. It does not expressly rquire a conviction, but a conviction would be

necessary to prove the facts in a case. Otherwise we could just jail folks based on witness testimony.

[John Shaft]

117. Section 3 is self-executing

and does not require a conviction.

Why are so many here fixated on this "conviction first" angle?

It's simply NOT TRUE.

[sakabatou]

68. I'm sure this will be appealed by Dump

[ShazzieB]

73. Very interesting!

I would NOT assume that SCOTUS is going to strike this down. They've ruled against him before (I forget how many times), and I don't think even the conservatives are all big Trump fans.

Sure, they could rule in his favor, but it's far from a foregone conclusion.

[EndlessWire]

75. I'm stunned.

It's an early Christmas present! Finally, sense is made. This ruling made me think of Colorado sleigh rides through pristine snow with bells ringing. Thank you, Colorado!

[Freethinker65]

79. Does a failed insurrection attempt count?

[FBaggins]

81. Of course. In fact it's the only kind that does

A successful insurrection doesn’t leave behind a system that keeps insurrectionists from power.

[Prairie Gates]

113. Treason doth never prosper / What's the reason?

For if it prosper...

Ah, y'all know the rest.

[republianmushroom]

83. Damn, what a good start.

Some justices calling it as it is.

[Ollie Garkie]

85. 49 states to go-nt

[DonCoquixote]

96. yay

1 down 49 to go

[Hassler]

99. One down 49 to go

[Kablooie]

103. No way SCOTUS will let this stand.

If they allowed it that would mean the Constitution bans him from running so all states would have to ban him.
They aren’t going to eliminate Trump as a candidate so they can’t let it stand.
I doubt they can proclaim it unconstitutional either without a lengthy justification.

They may say they can’t make a decision until they hear both sides which would take months so the whole thing will be put aside until sometime after the election.

[Aussie105]

109. The vagueness in all this astounds me!

Encouraging an insurrection . . .

Not taking affirmative action as POTUS to stop a rebellion.

Giving support and succor to enemies both in your own country and abroad.

People have faced a death sentence over this in the past.

Even poor old Guy Fawkes who only wanted to blow up the Houses of Parliament with barrels of gunpower was executed.

So why the vagueness in dealing with #45?

[33taw]

122. The way I read the announcement is that the decision is stayed until January 4th.

If Trump appeals this decision to the US Supreme Court the stay remains in effect and Trump will be on the ballot until the USSC makes a decision. Please read page 9 - maybe I am wrong, but that is what I read.



[link:https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf|

[FBaggins]

124. Your reading is correct - but incomplete

The stay only lasts until the state's deadline for a key stage in the ballot creation process. SCOTUS must either rule by then or must issue their own stay if they don't think they can rule prior to January 4th.

There's an intermediary possibility that I don't think is very likely. Trump could instead appeal to a 10th circuit federal district court (since they can overturn a state supreme court on matters of the federal constitution). But that would add at least two (very likely three) levels of appeal... with little benefit for either side.

[33taw]

128. I fully believe this will be appealed and the order stayed.

[FBaggins]

129. I agree... and possibly with a larger majority than most expect

But then again… I’m shocked that anyone on the Colorado court was willing to make this ruling. So I’m open to being surprised.

Whether that’s “pleasantly” or not will have to wait until November

[LetMyPeopleVote]

123. Joe Biden with a great response to Trump's Colorado Disqualification

Link to tweet

[DownriverDem]

125. Guess who will save him?

The US Supreme Court will. I see where it's been said that the CO ruling would deny the voters. They sure didn't care that All Gore was denied.

[OhioTim]

126. Don't Want Trump Kicked Off

He is much more easily beatable than Haley

[Hekate]

131. Kick kick kickety kick