On Tuesday night, the Colorado GOP made a significant statement – if former President Donald Trump remains struck off the state’s presidential primary ballot for 2024, they would opt to cancel the primary altogether.
This assertion was made in response to the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday to remove Trump from the state’s 2024 presidential ballot. The court’s verdict stipulates that the former President’s actions on January 6, 2021, amounted to an ‘insurrection’.
In their response to the Court’s ruling, the Colorado Republican Party declared, “We will withdraw from the Primary as a Party and convert to a pure caucus system if this is allowed to stand.” The application of this 4-3 ruling, however, will be temporarily suspended as it awaits an appeal until January 4, 2023.
The court ruled that “President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” They also noted that his inclusion in the ballot would be deemed ‘a wrongful act’ under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State.
JUST IN: Chris Christie condemns the Colorado Supreme Court for banning Trump from their 2024 ballot.
Even Christie knows this is wrong. Why are Nikki Haley & Ron DeSantis afraid to do the same?
The statement from Christie comes just minutes after Vivek Ramaswamy called on… pic.twitter.com/bUp4BX1qXI
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) December 20, 2023
Meanwhile, Trump’s campaign swiftly reacted to this ruling, labeling it “a completely flawed decision” and “deeply undemocratic.” A campaign spokesperson expressed their confidence in securing a favorable ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, which they believed would put an end to what they termed as “unAmerican lawsuits.”
The Court argued that there was “substantial evidence” pointing to the fact that Trump’s actions and the subsequent unrest on January 6 considerably hindered the U.S. government’s ability to peacefully transfer power, thereby constituting an ‘insurrection.’
However, Heritage Foundation election law expert and former FEC commissioner Hans von Spakovsky criticized the ruling as being “nakedly partisan” and “anti-democratic.” He pointed out that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment pertains only to individuals who hold specified designations, none of which refer to the president.
More so, Trump has not been federally convicted for engaging in an ‘insurrection or rebellion,’ and there are claims that Section 3 of the amendment no longer holds constitutional weight after the Amnesty Acts of 1872 and 1898 – a point overlooked by the court. He concluded by questioning the legal authority of the Colorado Supreme Court to enforce Section 3 since it is not self-executing, and Congress has not passed a federal law providing for its enforcement.
Unpopular opinion but I don’t think this is the right move. You aren’t punishing the Left by withdrawing from the ballot. If anything you’re just encouraging them to keep doing this kind of thing. A protest has to hurt the enemy or it’s totally ineffective. How does this hurt the… https://t.co/5m5lJlO9hP
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) December 20, 2023
Clearly, this recent judgment by the Colorado Supreme Court has elicited strong reactions and drawn a line in the sands of political allegiances. The Colorado GOP’s decision to potentially cancel the primary underscores the magnitude of this issue. While the situation awaits further review, the outcome could have significant implications for the state and national political landscape.
This development follows the verdict that former President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. According to the court, his involvement in the events of January 6, 2021, meant that he engaged in an ‘insurrection,’ thus preventing a peaceful transition of power.
Despite this, the Trump campaign remains undeterred, describing the decision as “deeply undemocratic.” They are confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in their favor and wholly dismiss what they interpret as “unAmerican lawsuits.”
Meanwhile, experts have put forth diverse interpretations of the ruling. Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation election law expert and former FEC commissioner, critiqued the ruling as “nakedly partisan” and “anti-democratic.” He argued that the court’s application of the 14th Amendment is questionable and that no federal court has convicted Trump of the charge of Insurrection.
The monumental implications of these developments rest on the determination of whether Trump’s actions on January 6 indeed constituted an insurrection as defined in the United States Constitution. A considerable part of the controversy stems from the interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and whether it applies to a sitting president.
Trump’s campaign maintains that they were not afforded due process, and the ruling is seen as an attempt to sideline a potentially popular candidate. However, the Court holds firm that the integrity of peaceful power transfers necessitates such decisions, given the evidence available. Meanwhile, the Colorado GOP emphasizes their belief in the right of voters to decide the fate of the election, hence their threat to withdraw from the primary if Trump’s disqualification stands.
In the wake of these events, the political landscape seems ripe for intense debate. The pending appeal and the Colorado GOP’s decision could have considerable implications for the 2024 presidential election, both in Colorado and potentially nationwide.
Space will closely be watched for further developments. This ongoing political drama underscores the sensitive and contentious nature of post-January 6 politics in the United States.