Tackling Your 2024 Questions + BONUS: Disqualified in Colorado Podcast Summary with Jennifer Palmieri, Claire McCaskill, Caller #1, Andrew Weissmann, Mary McCord

Tackling Your 2024 Questions + BONUS: Disqualified in Colorado

1-Page Summary

Stay of the Colorado ruling

The Colorado Supreme Court has temporarily halted its ruling which would bar former President Donald Trump from the state's presidential primary ballot. This stay is in anticipation of a possible review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The outcome from the federal court is pending, and if it does not arrive by March 4th, it could lead to logistical issues with ballot printing and absentee voters. Meanwhile, due to the stay, Trump is expected to remain on the Colorado primary ballot pending the Supreme Court's review.

Colorado Supreme Court rulings on legal issues

The Colorado Supreme Court's rulings have outlined the capacity to challenge a candidate's eligibility under Colorado election law and clarified that courts are not barred from reviewing such matters by the "political question" doctrine. The Court has determined that no implementing legislation is needed for someone to be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and concluded that the term "office" in this context includes the presidency. They have also upheld the admittance of parts of the January 6 Committee's report as evidence and agreed that the Capitol attack constituted an insurrection. Moreover, they judged that Donald Trump participated in the insurrection and that his related speech was not protected by the First Amendment.

Factors contributing to the insurrection finding

The Colorado Supreme Court, with input from Andrew Weissmann, identified several factors leading to the categorization of the January 6 Capitol attack as an insurrection. This includes Trump's consistent spread of disproven claims about election fraud and his direct call to supporters to march to the Capitol to disrupt the certification process. Additionally, the Court decided Trump's language showed a specific intent to incite immediate illegal activity, aiming to prevent the certification of the 2020 election results.

1-Page Summary

Additional Materials

Clarifications

The Colorado Supreme Court rulings clarified the process to challenge a candidate's eligibility under state election law, stating that courts can review such matters. They determined that disqualification under the 14th Amendment does not require additional legislation and includes the presidency. The Court admitted parts of the January 6 Committee's report as evidence, affirming that the Capitol attack was an insurrection. They found that Donald Trump's actions during the attack were not protected by the First Amendment.
The "political question" doctrine is a legal principle that guides courts on when they should refrain from deciding certain issues due to their political nature. It suggests that some matters are better left to the executive or legislative branches of government rather than the judiciary. Courts typically avoid interfering in political questions to maintain the separation of powers and uphold the Constitution's balance between branches. This doctrine helps define the boundaries of judicial review and ensures that courts do not overstep their authority into areas traditionally handled by other branches of government.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment addresses the issue of individuals who have engaged in rebellion or insurrection against the United States. It prohibits those who have taken part in such activities from holding public office unless granted a pardon by a two-thirds vote of Congress. This section was primarily aimed at former Confederates after the Civil War to prevent them from holding office unless Congress decided otherwise. It is a constitutional provision that deals with loyalty to the United States government following acts of rebellion or insurrection.
The January 6 Committee's report is a document created by a congressional committee tasked with investigating the events surrounding the January 6th Capitol attack. It includes findings, analysis, and recommendations related to the insurrection, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of what occurred and why. The report may contain details on the security failures, individuals involved, motivations behind the attack, and any systemic issues that contributed to the events of that day. It serves as a crucial tool for lawmakers and the public to assess the impact of the insurrection and consider measures to prevent similar incidents in the future.
The legal definition of an insurrection involves a violent uprising against an authority or government, often with the aim of overthrowing it. It typically includes organized actions that seek to disrupt the normal functioning of governmental processes through force or coercion. Insurrection is a serious offense under the law and can lead to severe legal consequences for those involved. The key elements usually include a deliberate attempt to subvert the established order through unlawful means.
When it is stated that Trump's speech was not protected by the First Amendment, it means that his speech did not qualify for constitutional protection due to its direct incitement to illegal actions, such as the Capitol attack. The First Amendment protects free speech, but there are limitations, including speech that incites imminent lawless action. In this case, the court found that Trump's speech crossed the line by urging his supporters to engage in illegal activities, leading to the conclusion that it was not shielded by the First Amendment.

Counterarguments

The stay by the Colorado Supreme Court could be seen as a procedural safeguard ensuring that all legal avenues are exhausted before a final decision is made, which is a standard legal practice.
The U.S. Supreme Court's potential review of the Colorado ruling may highlight the importance of a uniform approach to interpreting constitutional provisions across different states.
The logistical issues with ballot printing and absentee voters could be argued as a necessary inconvenience to ensure the integrity of the electoral process and adherence to legal standards.
The interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and its application to presidential eligibility is a complex constitutional issue that could be subject to different legal interpretations, and some may argue that further legislative clarification is needed.
The use of the January 6 Committee's report as evidence could be criticized for potential bias or incomplete investigation, and some may argue for a more comprehensive and neutral examination of the events.
The determination that the Capitol attack constituted an insurrection and that Donald Trump participated in it is a legal conclusion that could be contested based on different interpretations of the evidence and the legal definition of "insurrection."
The assessment that Trump's speech was not protected by the First Amendment could be challenged on the grounds of free speech protections, with some arguing that the speech did not meet the legal standard for incitement.
The factors leading to the insurrection finding, such as the spread of disproven claims about election fraud, could be argued as being part of political rhetoric rather than a direct cause of the Capitol attack.
The interpretation of Trump's intent based on his language could be seen as subjective, and some may argue that it requires a higher standard of proof to establish a specific intent to incite immediate illegal activity.

Learn more

Read the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Disqualifying Trump From the ...

The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203 2023 CO 63 Supreme Court Case No. 23SA300 Appeal Pursuant to § 1-1-113(3), C.R.S. (2023) District Court ...

How Many Died as a Result of Capitol Riot? - FactCheck.org

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol resulted in "almost 10 dead." Four people died that day, and five others -- all law enforcement officers -- died days, weeks and ...

A breakdown of the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling on Trump

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump should be excluded from the state's presidential primary because he was deemed by the court to have engaged in insurrection.

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.

Get access for free

Tackling Your 2024 Questions + BONUS: Disqualified in Colorado

Stay of the Colorado ruling

The Colorado Supreme Court has issued a stay on its own ruling that would have prevented Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot in the state's presidential primary.

U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to take the case and rule on the issues

Following the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, the case may rise to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump is expected to seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court by filing a cert petition. The higher court has been highlighted as having the authority to rule on federal constitutional issues, such as the definition of an insurrection under Section 3. McCord hopes that the Supreme Court will promptly accept the petition and arrange an expedited briefing schedule to address the case. Weissmann concurs with the likelihood of the Supreme Court hearing the case.

Given the stay, there's uncertainty over if the Supreme Court will issue a ruling before the ballots need to be printed. If a decision comes after March 4th, it could be problematic since it might not be possible to reprint the ballots, and some voters may have already submitted absentee ballots.