Why a Colorado Court Just Knocked Trump Off the Ballot

from New York Times I'm Michael Boro. this is the. [Music]. daily today the story behind the. bombshell Court rolling issued last. night that could knock Donald Trump off. the ballot for president in Colorado and. open the floodgates for efforts to. disqualify him across the country I. spoke with my colleague Supreme Court.

reporter Adam. lipac it's Wednesday December. [Music]. 20th so Adam thank you for jumping on. with us so last minute and so late at. night it is 1000 p.m. on the nose and. we're talking to you at this ungodly. hour because we've all just been jolted. by a very big ruling from the Colorado. Supreme Court can you can you briefly.

just describe that ruling the Colorado. Supreme Court by a 4 to3 vote said that. Donald Trump is not eligible to be on. the ballot for the Republican primary. election there saying that a provision. of the 14th Amendment adopted after the. Civil War bars people who have engaged. in Insurrection from holding federal. office that Donald Trump did engage in. an Insurrection in his efforts to. overturn the 2020 election.

mhm and that this Clause although. fashioned for the aftermath of the Civil. War continues to have force and requires. the court to Bar him from being on the. ballot so just in summary the court has. found that Trump's overall conduct. around what we have come to call January. 6th his role in a pretty elaborate. effort to overturn the 2020 election. despite losing it means that he should.

not be allowed to stand for reelection. in Colorado which would seem to have. very big implications for the 2024. election because it's an election that's. about to start in just a few weeks. primaries will be underway by mid. January yeah so it's enormously. consequential in Colorado there's. similar lawsuits filed in other states. notably Michigan this decision will. almost certainly result in even more of. them and this really needs to be an.

issue that is resolved on a nationwide. basis meaning it has to go to the. Supreme Court and it would be shocking. if the Supreme Court would not wait in. take this case or a similar one and. issue a ruling on this question that you. know a decade ago would have been. impossible to imagine that this Civil. War era constitutional. provision could at least in legal Theory. knock the leading candidate of one of.

the two major political parties off the. ballot right I mean what you're. describing is a Supreme Court case with. Monumental Stakes because the court will. be asked to shape the Contours of the. next presidential race right and you. know the Supreme Court knows that it. can't let chaos reain it has to issue a. definitive ruling MH so it's kind of. impossible to imagine that one Court.

having gone this far and the Supreme. Court of a major state that the US. Supreme Court would stay out of it it. will feel obligated to give us a. definitive answer okay so Adam given how. big the stakes of this already are and. how big they are going to be when the. Supreme Court takes it up give us the. story behind this pretty extraordinary. case and how it is that it ever reaches. this point so it didn't take long after. January 6 for Liberal legal activists.

and others to note that just as the. Constitution says you can't be president. if you're not 35 years old you also. can't be president if you're an. insurrectionist and the theory being. that section three of the 14th Amendment. bars people who have taken an oath to. support the Constitution of the United. States from holding office if they then. quote shall have engaged in Insurrection. or Rebellion against the same or given.

Aid or Comfort to the enemies thereof so. they say that fits Donald Trump pretty. well and this Theory gets a lot of. Applause and support from precisely the. people you might imagine from liberals. But as time goes on legal Scholars and. others start to say wait a second this. actually makes sense H Scholars like who. well the issue really gets turbocharged. in August when two prominent. conservative law professors members of.

the Federalist Society William bod of. the University of Chicago and Michael. Stokes Paulson of the University of St. Thomas publish an early draft of a long. article that's going to be in the. University of Pennsylvania Law review. and they are originalists meaning that. they try to unearth the original meaning. of the Constitutional provision and the. more they looked at it the more they. thought it was. indisputable that Donald Trump had. committed the kinds of Acts that the.

provision gets triggered by and. otherwise qualifies as someone who. should be excluded from the ballot uh. because of the things he did so these. conservative-minded legal theorists who. you might think on paper would be. inclined to identify with Trump agree. that Trump does qualify as an. insurrectionist under the 14th Amendment. and as a result should be ineligible. from being on the ballot for the.

presidency yeah they looked at the. historical record and they found that. there was as they put it abundant. evidence that Trump engaged in an. Insurrection including by setting out to. overturn the results of the election. trying to alter vote counts by fraud and. intimidation pressuring the vice. president to violate the constitution. calling for the march on the capital I. mean they say that every official in the. land that election officials themselves. the state secretaries of State in charge. of state election law has an obligation.

to keep Trump off the ballot wow the. Constitution simply says they say that. if you've done these things you cannot. be. president and so how does this. turbocharged. conversation lead to a case in Colorado. a group of Colorado voters file a. lawsuit saying Donald Trump should not. be allowed to be on the primary ballot. and the lawsuit proceeds and it goes to. a state trial judge and she does.

something interesting she says first of. all that Donald Trump did engage an. Insurrection but she says Section 3. nonetheless doesn't apply to him for two. reasons she says that the only oath he. took as president to support the. Constitution was not the kind of oath. that triggers Section 3 and she says the. office that he seeks the presidency is. not one of the offices from which.

section 3 disqualifies people so for. both of those reasons she says Section 3. doesn't apply to Donald Trump even. though he engaged in Insurrection so. what happens after that well there's an. appeal on a very quick schedule to the. Colorado Supreme. Court both sides are unhappy with some. parts of the decision M Donald Trump is. not happy to be called an. insurrectionist the voters are not happy. that they lose on what they they see as.

a kind of weird. technicality and the state supreme court. for the first time in the history of the. Republic is faced with the question of. whether it's going to. disqualify a candidate for president. from one of the major political. [Music]. parties we'll be right. [Music]. back.

So Adam once the Colorado Supreme Court. and its judges take up this case on. appeal what happens to it so the court. has a long involved oral argument the. justices are quite engaged they're all. of them appointed by democrats but they. come at the case from many different. angles there are lots of legal issues in. it and Trump's lawyers dispute the. insurrectionist point to some extent. they minim ize Donald Trump's.

involvement they say maybe it was more a. riot than an Insurrection but they. really press hardest on the point that. the provision we've been talking about. section three of the 14th Amendment. doesn't apply to their client and. doesn't apply to the office of the. presidency so they seize on this Lower. Court judges decision right and they get. a kind of skeptical response from at. least some of the justices on the. Colorado Supreme Court one of them said. how is that not absurd I mean in what.

world would the framers of the 14th. Amendment want to disqualify everybody. from every federal office who has. engaged in Insurrection except for a. former president and except for the. office of the presidency the court. looked at lots of other issues too most. of them you know too technical to spend. a lot of time on but there are questions. like does the court have. jurisdiction is this a political. question that should not be resolved by.

judges does Congress have to act to. implement the 14th Amendment it's a. Thicket of complicated legal issues but. the two key points are the factual one. did he engage an Insurrection and the. legal one does section three apply to. him at all and when the court rules 4. to3 they say that the voter. challenging Trump's candidacy have run.

the table on all of these issues have. established that he is an. insurrectionist and have established. also that the provision section three. applies to Donald Trump and in issuing. this decision the four justices in the. majority seem to recognize the gravity. of what they were doing they wrote We do. not reach these conclusions lightly. we are mindful of the magnitude and.

weight of the questions now before us we. are likewise mindful of our solemn duty. to apply the law without fear or favor. and without being swayed by public. reaction to the decisions that the law. mandates we reach okay so let's now turn. Adam to the question of how quickly this. case is likely to get to the US Supreme. Court now on appeal and how we think. this Supreme Court is likely to receive.

it and think about it uh there's every. reason to think Donald Trump will go to. the Supreme Court in very short order. and there's every reason to think the. court will take the case and in due. course but probably not for a month or. two issue a definitive ruling what will. that ruling be well I think that we. should first of all reject the idea that. it's a predictable 63 ruling in favor of. Donald Trump H because the Court's. conservative majority is is six to three.

liberals that's right six Republican. appointees three Democratic appointees. and on a kind of Knucklehead level you. might think well that'll tell us what's. going on right but I think what will. weigh on the justices more and on both. sides of the ideological aisle is who. should decide this question should the. voters take account of Donald Trump's. conduct in the aftermath of the 2020. election and make judgments for thems El.

about whether he's fit to be president. again or should courts relying on a. provision of the Constitution of the. United States that seems to speak to. this issue take that question out of the. voters hands interesting many of the. justices you're saying perhaps all the. justices even the liberal justices may. be reluctant to issue the kind of ruling. against Trump in this case that would. effectively take electoral choices away.

from voters yes that that's right and I. think that works on two levels the. justices of course will understand. themselves to be making a purely legal. judgment based on text history structure. of the Constitution the facts and so on. but even some of the doctrines that. they're looking at like the so-called. political question Doctrine which urges. courts to stay out of some kinds of. disputes are broadly similar to an. Impulse that many people might have in a. non-legal.

sense that these are serious. matters Donald Trump is accused of doing. grave wrongs in trying to overturn the. election but who should decide the. consequences of that should it be nine. people in Washington or should it be the. electorate of the United States which. can you know for itself assess whether. Trump's conduct is so blameworthy. that he should not have the opportunity.

to serve another. term H another way to think about this. is that you're suggesting that judicial. restraint in matters of an election. might override the Justice's impulse to. carefully read the 14th Amendment and. the facts of this case and find that. Trump is an insurrectionist and that the. courts have the power to take him off. the ballot the. Prospect of what would be a profoundly.

anti-democratic ruling saying that. people who want to vote for Donald Trump. may not vote for him is going to weigh. on the justices it will be part of this. Rich stew of calculations that go into. their decision in this case got it and. if I'm reading with J lines here what. you're really saying is it's going to be. unlikely that the Supreme Court rules. that Trump should be taken off the. ballot in Colorado or any other state.

where voters are filing similar lawsuits. it's early days we've just had the first. major decision there's going to be a lot. of briefs a lot of arguments and we'll. learn a lot more but if you ask me today. what the likely outcome is at the. Supreme Court it is not that they're. going to tell the American public that. one of the two leading candidates for. president can't be on the. ballot well let's play with that for. just a moment let's say the Supreme.

Court surprises us surprises you and. decides to let this ruling from Colorado. Supreme Court stand just on a legal. basis what would be the consequences of. that given as you have said that people. are trying to file similar lawsuits. across the. country you would expect lawsuits in. just about every state and you would. expect some state election officials. some State secretaries of state to.

themselves take action to take Trump off. the ballot if the Supreme Court were to. Greenlight the. idea that Trump's participation in the. aftermath of the 2020 election. disqualifies him it would give rise to. all kinds of actions in all kinds of. states it seems hard to overstate Adam. just how delicate this moment seems to. be we have a deeply polarized electorate.

an election that is shaping up to be. excruciatingly close according to many. polls and the knowledge that the last. election featuring the same two. candidates we think might end up being. the nominees again ended with a violent. Insurrection at the capital we've been. talking about it over doubts about the. legitimacy of that election and. now this election is already in court. long before any votes have have been. cast and the courts are being asked.

whether one of these two candidates. should even be allowed on the ballot and. so depending on the ruling those really. do look like the. ingredients for a potential Powder Keg. for something that could be very scary. yeah Michael it's it's a dangerous. moment I got an email tonight from Rick. Hassen a election law specialist at UCLA.

who said the stakes remind him of bush. Vore the 2000 decision that handed the. presidency to George W bush right he. said once again the Supreme Court is. being thrust into the center of a US. presidential election but unlike in. 2000 the general political instability. in the United States makes the situation. now much more. precarious. [Music].

well Adam thank you very much we really. appreciate it thank you. Michael we'll be right. [Music]. back here's what else you need to. another day on Tuesday the US military. laid out a plan to create a naval. coalition to confront militants in Yemen. who have been using drones and Rockets.

to attack commercial ships in the Red. Sea the militants members of the houthi. militia began firing on the ships as a. protest of Israel's war on Hamas and. Ally of the houthis as a result some of. the world's biggest companies have. stopped sending their tankers through. the Red Sea the new Naval Coalition will. include contributions from among others. Britain Bahrain Canada France and.

Italy and a new analysis shows that 2023. was a uniquely unproductive year for the. House of Representatives the Republican. Le chamber passed just 27 bills that. became law despite holding. 724 votes according to the bipartisan. policy center that is more voting and. less lawmaking than at any other point. in the past.

decade today's episode was produced by. Rob zipco and Carlos prto it was edited. by Lisa chow and Rachel quer contains. original music from Maran Lozano and Dan. Powell and was engineered by Chris Wood. our theme music is by Jim runber and Ben. lanfer of. [Music]. wonderly that's it for the daily I'm. Michael buaro. see you.

[Music]. tomorrow.