Supreme Court Is Unlikely to Let Colorado Kick Trump Off Ballot After 2-Hour Deliberation

This article was written with the help of A.I. software.

Colorado moves to kick Trump off ballotPhoto bythe author (licensed under creative commons license CC BY 4.0)

On Thursday, the Supreme Court showed deep skepticism about the legality and authority of Colorado's motion to remove former President, Donald Trump, from the ballot.

Justice Elena Kagan called the motion "quite extraordinary", questioning why a single state "should have the power to decide who gets to be president of the United States."

The initial motion by Colorado was based on a provision of the Constitution's 14th Amendment that bars people who "engaged in insurrection" from holding office.

During a 2-hour discussion, numerous Justices shared different ideologies all stemming from Trump's alleged actions to overturn the 2020 Presidential election.

Supreme Court's Skepticism of the Provisional Enforcement of the 14th Amendment

A 6:3 majority vote of Supreme Court Justices have expressed deep skepticism about the authority of Colorado and other states to determine whether a presidential candidate can be removed from the ballot.

The key issue at hand is whether states should have the power to enforce the provision of the 14th Amendment that bars individuals who engaged in insurrection from holding office.

They allege in court papers that Trump “intentionally organized and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in a desperate attempt to prevent the counting of electoral votes cast against him.”

Trump’s lawyers have offered several grounds for tossing out the lawsuit. They argue that the president is not an officer of the U.S., that Trump did not engage in insurrection and that only Congress can enforce Section 3.

Justices from both conservative and liberal backgrounds have raised concerns about the potential inconsistencies and chaos that could arise if each state had different interpretations of this constitutional provision.

"The Whole Point" is to Restrict State Power

The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, is currently deliberating significant legal issues surrounding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This particular provision, established in the aftermath of the Civil War, aims to prevent former Confederates who participated in an insurrection from holding federal office.

Section 3, aimed at preventing former Confederates from returning to power in the U.S. government, says anyone who had previously served as an “officer of the United States” and was then involved in an insurrection would be barred from holding federal office.

A case presented by Colorado voters argues that former President Donald Trump should be disqualified from running for office due to his actions in contesting the 2020 election results, which ultimately culminated in the January 6 attack on the Capitol. This case has sparked an examination by the Court as to whether states can enforce the provisions outlined in the 14th Amendment.

Supporters of President Donald Trump storm the Capitol in Washington on January 6, 2021Photo byJason Andrew/The New York Times/Redux

Chief Justice John Roberts said that the "whole point" of the 14th Amendment was to restrict state power after the Civil War in an attempt to bring Confederate states into line and questioned why it would give states the ability to kick a presidential candidate off the ballot.

"Wouldn't that be the last place that you'd look for authorization for the states, including Confederate states, to ... enforce the presidential election process?" he asked.

The justices are raising vital questions regarding the practical implications and potential inconsistencies that may arise from varying interpretations of this provision on a state-by-state basis.

Implications and Predictions if Colorado's Ruling is Upheld

The Supreme Court justices engaged in discussions to assess the potential consequences that may arise if the Colorado ruling, which aims to bar Donald Trump from the Republican primary ballot, is upheld. Chief Justice Roberts expressed his concern over the domino effect this ruling may have, with other states possibly following suit to remove presidential candidates from the ballot, regardless of their political affiliation.

This scenario could undoubtedly lead to chaos and uncertainty in future presidential elections.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's remarks shed light on the broader implications of the court's decision.

“Can you speak to the argument that really Section 3 was about preventing the South from rising again in the context of these sort of local elections, as opposed to focusing on the presidency,” Jackson asked.

She questioned the logic behind designing a system, as the authors of the 14th Amendment did, that allows for interim disuniformity in elections, where different states can exercise varying eligibility criteria for presidential candidates. This discussion raises profound questions about the potential ramifications of the court's ruling and the impact it may have on the electoral process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's skepticism during the oral arguments suggests that it is unlikely to allow Colorado to kick Donald Trump off the ballot for the Republican primary. The justices expressed concerns about states having the power to determine eligibility criteria for presidential candidates and emphasized the role of Congress in enforcing the provision of the 14th Amendment.

A ruling is expected within weeks, and the court's decision will have significant implications not only for Trump's candidacy but also for potential challenges to other presidential candidates in the future. This case has brought into focus the complex and novel legal issues surrounding the 14th Amendment and its application to the presidential election process.

As the court deliberates, it is clear that determining the eligibility of presidential candidates is a matter of great importance. The outcome of this case will shape the landscape of future elections, impacting not only Colorado's ballot but also the broader discussion on the interpretation and enforcement of the 14th Amendment. All eyes are now on the Supreme Court as the nation awaits its decision.

Hey, I'm Hudson! I write about social media, marketing... and, sometimes politics. Hit follow for more stories like this one.