Podcasts > The Daily > Why a Colorado Court Just Knocked Trump Off the Ballot

Why a Colorado Court Just Knocked Trump Off the Ballot

By The New York Times

In this gripping episode of "The Daily," hosted by Michael Barbaro with legal expertise from Adam Liptak, an unprecedented legal skirmish takes center stage: the disqualification of Donald Trump from the 2024 Republican primary election ballot by the Colorado Supreme Court. Accused of engaging in acts of insurrection, the former president's political fate now dangles on the interpretations of the 14th Amendment and the judiciary's role in upholding democratic principles. The hosts delve into the contentious decision and the intricate legal reasoning behind it, as the court grapples with the heavy consequence of barring a candidate from one of the nation's major political parties.

Liptak provides a sober prediction of the chaos that could ensue should the ruling stand, underscoring the severe implications not only for Trump's political aspirations but for the entire American electoral landscape. With the possibility of a Supreme Court intervention looming, the podcast dissects the potential for a legal domino effect across states and the intense debates that would likely ignite. Liptak points to the fragile state of U.S. democracy, with a public still divided over the last election's legitimacy and the ongoing repercussions of the Capitol insurrection. This examination presents the listener with a harrowing look at the judicial system's power in shaping the political future while recognizing the explosive intersection of law, politics, and societal division.

Listen to the original

Why a Colorado Court Just Knocked Trump Off the Ballot

This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Dec 20, 2023 episode of the The Daily

Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.

Why a Colorado Court Just Knocked Trump Off the Ballot

1-Page Summary

Colorado court ruling on Trump's 2024 eligibility

The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to be on the Republican primary election ballot for 2024 due to engaging in insurrection. This decision stems from Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, which the state trial judge characterized as acts of insurrection. However, he noted that the 14th Amendment's Section 3 does not apply to Trump because the presidential oath does not invoke this section, and the presidency is not an office from which one could be disqualified under it. Nonetheless, the Colorado Supreme Court, in a close four to three vote, found Trump ineligible for the ballot, with the majority justices understanding the significance of barring a candidate from a major political party and striving to apply the law fairly.

Likelihood of Supreme Court taking up the issue

It is highly expected that Donald Trump will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is likely to issue a nationwide ruling on his eligibility. The timing of the Supreme Court's definitive judgment might not be immediate, taking months to unfold. The Justices may wrestle with the decision because it challenges core democratic values and voter choice, potentially preferring that voters determine a candidate's eligibility. The outcome is not easily predictable along ideological lines, as justices may diverge from conventional thinking to consider the balance between public will and judicial intervention, possibly influenced by the political question doctrine.

Consequences if Trump barred from ballots

Should Donald Trump be barred from appearing on future ballots, legal analyst Adam Liptak foresees significant legal and political turmoil. If the Supreme Court upholds the Colorado court's decision, it could trigger numerous lawsuits in many states seeking Trump's disqualification. Secretaries of state might act independently to disqualify him, which could provoke intensified partisan battles. Given the United States' polarized electorate and lingering doubts about the 2020 election results, coupled with the precedent of the Capitol insurrection, Liptak highlights the dangerous potential for a crisis if Trump is barred from the electoral process.

1-Page Summary

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The 14th Amendment's Section 3 prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. from holding office unless Congress grants them a pardon. This section was originally aimed at former Confederates after the Civil War. In Trump's case, the Colorado court ruled that Section 3 did not apply to him due to specific legal interpretations.
  • If Donald Trump is barred from future ballots, it could lead to legal challenges in multiple states seeking his disqualification. This could result in heightened political tensions and potential conflicts between state officials and Trump supporters. The polarized political climate in the U.S., combined with lingering election doubts and the backdrop of the Capitol insurrection, could exacerbate the situation. Legal and political turmoil may ensue if Trump is prevented from participating in the electoral process, potentially sparking a crisis due to the contentious nature of the issue.
  • Legal analyst Adam Liptak foresees significant legal and political turmoil if Donald Trump is barred from future ballots. He predicts that upholding the Colorado court's decision could lead to multiple lawsuits across states seeking Trump's disqualification, potentially sparking intensified partisan conflicts. Liptak highlights the dangerous potential for a crisis due to the polarized electorate, doubts about the 2020 election, and the precedent of the Capitol insurrection if Trump is excluded from the electoral process.

Counterarguments

  • The Colorado Supreme Court's interpretation of "engaging in insurrection" may be seen as subjective and could be argued as an overreach of judicial authority into political matters.
  • The application of the 14th Amendment's Section 3 to a former president is a matter of legal debate, and some may argue that it should apply if the actions in question meet the criteria for insurrection or rebellion.
  • The majority justices' aim to apply the law fairly could be criticized for potentially ignoring the original intent of the 14th Amendment's framers or for setting a precedent that could be used to disqualify other candidates in the future.
  • The expectation that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue may be overly presumptive, as the Court has discretion over which cases it hears and may decline to intervene.
  • The prediction that the Supreme Court's decision may take months could be challenged by pointing out that the Court has the ability to expedite cases of national importance.
  • The notion that justices may struggle with the decision could be countered by the argument that the justices are well-equipped to handle complex legal and constitutional questions without being swayed by political considerations.
  • The idea that the outcome is not easily predictable along ideological lines could be criticized by those who believe that the justices' past decisions and philosophical leanings provide a reliable indicator of their potential rulings.
  • The potential for legal and political turmoil if Trump is barred from future ballots could be seen as speculative and not necessarily a direct consequence of the court's ruling.
  • The assertion that secretaries of state might independently disqualify Trump could be countered by the argument that such actions would need to be grounded in state law and subject to judicial review.
  • The concern about intensified partisan battles may be criticized as an inevitable aspect of the political process, not unique to this situation.
  • The fear of a crisis if Trump is barred from the electoral process could be countered by the argument that the rule of law and adherence to constitutional principles are paramount in a democratic society, even if they lead to short-term political unrest.

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Why a Colorado Court Just Knocked Trump Off the Ballot

Colorado court ruling on Trump's 2024 eligibility

Facts of the case

The courts have evaluated former President Donald Trump’s actions concerning the 2020 election. It was determined that Trump's efforts to overturn the election results amounted to an insurrection.

Trump was found to have engaged in insurrection based on efforts to overturn 2020 election

A state trial judge affirmed that Trump did engage in acts of insurrection.

Lower court said he engaged in insurrection but 14th Amendment section 3 didn't apply to him

The judge clarified that the 14th Amendment's Section 3 is inapplicable to Trump. The rationale was that the presidential oath does not invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, the judge indicated that the presidency is not an office from which one could be disqualified under this section of the Amendment.

Colorado Supreme Court ruling

The Colorado Supreme Court, with a narrow margin, held that Trump is not eligible for the Republican primary election ballot.

Trump found to be ineligible for 2024 ballot due to insurrection

By a vote of four to three, the Colorado Supreme Court deemed Trump ineligible to be on the 2024 ballot due to his engagement in an insurrection. This dec ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Colorado court ruling on Trump's 2024 eligibility

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The 14th Amendment's Section 3 was historically enacted to address the issue of individuals who engaged in rebellion or insurrection against the United States. It prohibits those who have taken part in such activities from holding public office unless pardoned by a two-thirds vote in Congress. This section was primarily aimed at former Confederates after the Civil War but has been rarely invoked in modern times. The interpretation and application of this section can be complex and require careful legal analysis in each specific case.
  • The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump ineligible for the 2024 ballot due to his engagement in an insurrection. The court emphasized the seriousness of barring a major party's candidate and considered the implications of disqualifying a leading candidate from a prominent political party. The decision was made by a narrow margin of four to three, indicating a close call in the court's deliberation. The justices aimed to apply the law impartially and underscored the importance of upholding legal standards without bias.
  • Barring a major party's candidate lik ...

Counterarguments

  • The determination of what constitutes "insurrection" may be subject to legal interpretation, and some may argue that Trump's actions, while controversial, do not meet the legal definition of insurrection.
  • There could be a legal argument that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does indeed apply to the President, and the lower court's interpretation may be challenged on constitutional grounds.
  • The decision to bar a candidate from the ballot could be seen as disenfranchising the voters who would choose to support that candidate, and some may argue that the electorate should be the ultimate judge of a cand ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Why a Colorado Court Just Knocked Trump Off the Ballot

Likelihood of Supreme Court taking up the issue

Supreme Court likely to issue definitive, nationwide ruling

There is a strong possibility that Donald Trump will appeal to the Supreme Court in the near future, and when he does, it's expected that the Court will provide a definitive nationwide ruling. However, such a ruling may not emerge immediately, possibly taking a month or two to be determined.

Court may be reluctant to bar candidates from ballots

Justices value democratic principles and voter choice

Justices may hesitate to make a decision that would effectively eliminate electoral options for the voters, thus overriding the principles of democracy and voter choice. They may instead view that the decision of a candidate's eligibility should be vested in the voting population.

The justices might regard their role as delivering a purely legal judgment. Doctrines like the political question doctrine could influence their decision, implying that the courts should avoid meddling in certain types of disputes.

Ideology may not predict justices' thinking on t ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Likelihood of Supreme Court taking up the issue

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The political question doctrine is a legal principle that guides courts on when they should refrain from deciding certain issues. It suggests that some matters are better left to the political branches of government rather than the judiciary. This doctrine helps maintain the separation of powers and prevents courts from intruding into areas where they lack expertise or authority. It aims to uphold the Constitution's balance by delineating which issues are appropriate for judicial review and which are more suited for other branches of government.
  • Predictable ideological reasoning in the context of the Supreme Court's decision-making process typically implies that justices' decisions align with their known political ideologies or leanings. In this case, the text suggests that the debate ov ...

Counterarguments

  • The Supreme Court may decline to hear Trump's appeal if it does not meet the criteria for cases they typically review.
  • The Supreme Court could issue a more narrow ruling that does not address the issue definitively or nationwide.
  • The timeline for a Supreme Court decision is uncertain and could take longer than a month or two, depending on the complexity of the issues and the Court's docket.
  • Justices may not be as reluctant to bar candidates from ballots if there is a clear legal basis for doing so, regardless of democratic principles and voter choice.
  • The decision of a candidate's eligibility could be seen as a legal issue that is within the purview of the courts to decide, rather than leaving it to the voting population.
  • The role of the justices is to interpret the law, which may sometimes require making decisions that have political implications.
  • The political question doctrine is not always applicable, and the Court may find that the issue at hand is justiciable.
  • I ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Why a Colorado Court Just Knocked Trump Off the Ballot

Consequences if Trump barred from ballots

Adam Liptak examines the potential legal and political upheaval that could arise if Donald Trump is barred from appearing on future ballots, and he explains how this situation could lead to a crisis given the United States' deeply divided electorate.

Lawsuits in many states to disqualify Trump

Adam Liptak predicts that if the Supreme Court allows the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling to stand, it could lead to a cascade of lawsuits in nearly every state. He suggests that the decision would open the floodgates for extensive legal challenges aimed at disqualifying Trump from the ballot in multiple jurisdictions.

Secretaries of state could act to bar him

Beyond court battles, Liptak also suggests that some state secretaries of state might take it upon themselves to remove Trump from the ballot preemptively if the legal pathway is provided by the Supreme Court's decision. This action could dramatically shake up the electoral process and intensify partisan conflict over ballot access.

Dangerous moment given polarized electorate and doubts about 2020 election

Liptak, along wit ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Consequences if Trump barred from ballots

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The text mentions a scenario where Donald Trump could be barred from future ballots due to legal challenges. The reference to the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling suggests a specific legal case where Trump's eligibility to appear on the ballot was questioned. This situation could potentially trigger a series of lawsuits across various states, leading to significant legal and political ramifications. The involvement of state secretaries of state in potentially preemptively removing Trump from the ballot adds another layer of complexity to the issue.
  • State secretaries of state oversee elections and ballot access within their respective states. The ...

Counterarguments

  • The legal system is designed to handle disputes, including those related to candidate qualifications, and the courts are equipped to manage such lawsuits without necessarily leading to a crisis.
  • Secretaries of state are bound by law and precedent, and any action to remove a candidate from the ballot would likely be subject to judicial review, ensuring a check on their power.
  • The electorate's division does not automatically mean that barring a candidate from the ballot would lead to a crisis; it could also reinforce the rule of law and the importance of adhering to constitutional principles.
  • The political upheaval associated with barring a candidate could be mitigated through transparent legal processes and clear communication from judicial and electoral bodies.
  • Partisan conflict over ballot access is not new and can be addressed through established legal and political channels, which may include legislative action or electoral reform.
  • While the pol ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free

Create Summaries for anything on the web

Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser

Shortform Extension CTA