Former President Donald Trump
WASHINGTON − A Colorado judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump will be included on the presidential primary ballot in the state next year. Liberal groups’ argument that he had disqualified himself for a second term by attempting to overturn the 2020 election was dismissed.
Judge Sarah Wallace of the Colorado District stated that the provision in the 14th Amendment, which could potentially disqualify specific officials associated with insurrection, does not extend to the presidency.
Over the past few weeks, courts in Minnesota, Michigan, and New Hampshire have rejected legal claims of a similar nature.
The Colorado lawsuit, introduced via the watchdog institution Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is amongst many comparable instances pending nationwide.
These instances rely upon a provision of the 14th Amendment; a relationship returned to the post-Civil War era, which prohibits those who participated in rebellion after taking an oath to uphold the Constitution from keeping a better workplace again.
According to Wallace, she concurred with the notion that the provision’s drafters intended to exclude the president’s inclusion. However, Wallace did determine that the events of the Capitol storming on Jan. 6, 2021, undeniably met the criteria for insurrection.
The CREW organization emphasized that the court confirmed the occurrence of an insurrection. They also expressed their intention to challenge the decision.
Readmore California governor says: Los Angeles freeway repairs will take three to five weeks Fire-damaged
Noah Bookbinder, the president of CREW, stated, “
The court’s ruling validates the allegations made in our lawsuit, demonstrating that Donald Trump became concerned about the revolt on January 6th. We take pride in initiating this groundbreaking case, confident in the accuracy of our facts and legal stance.”
The ruling was referred to as “another blow to the un-American ballot challenges” by Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign.
The plaintiffs contended that due to Trump’s endeavors to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election, which culminated in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, he should be disallowed from holding the presidency, similar to how he would not qualify if he were not a natural-born citizen, which is another constitutional requirement for the position.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which is under consideration in these cases, states that individuals who have previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States and have engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or provide assistance or comfort to enemies thereof, are prohibited from holding federal office.
The clause in question has been utilized sparingly, primarily in the aftermath of the Civil War. The lawyers representing Trump argued that it was never intended to apply to the presidential office, as it is not explicitly mentioned in the text. Additionally, they portrayed the legal endeavor as depriving voters of their right to elect a president.
On November 8, Minnesota’s highest court ruled to include Trump on the state’s presidential primary ballot. However, courts in Minnesota might review this matter again for the general election.
According to a four-page order from the Minnesota court, the state’s primary election is considered an “internal party election.” It is important to note that winning this contest does not automatically guarantee placement on the state’s general election ballot.
The court also mentioned that no specific state law prevents a political party from nominating a candidate who may be ineligible for office.
A judge in Michigan determined that Trump would be included on the ballot. The judge also noted that the matter of defining an “insurrection” should be addressed by Congress rather than the courts.
Michigan Judge James Robert Redford argues that the decision on whether there was a rebellion or insurrection and whether someone participated in it should be entrusted to a single judicial officer instead of Congress.
While a judicial officers may be well-intentioned, fair, and learned, they cannot represent the qualities of every citizen, unlike the House of Representatives and the Senate, which consist of elected representatives from every state in the nation.