Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley has criticized Colorado’s decision to bar former President Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot, calling it an “anti-Democratic” opinion. The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to disqualify Trump from running for president over the Jan. 6 Capitol riot has divided the court not along party lines, but by the law schools its justices attended. The four justices who ruled against Trump all attended Ivy League or other top-ranked elite law schools on the East Coast, while the three dissenting justices graduated from the University of Denver’s law school.
This landmark decision, made by a court whose justices were all appointed by Democratic governors, marks the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate. It sets the stage for a likely showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether the GOP front-runner can remain in the race. The court’s 4-3 decision states that “a majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”
The four justices who ruled against Trump are Richard L. Gabriel, Melissa Hart, Monica Márquez, and William W. Hood III. Gabriel graduated from UPenn, Hart from Harvard, Márquez from Yale, and Hood from the University of Virginia. Meanwhile, criticisms have been directed at prestigious universities for their failure to address issues like wokeism and antisemitism on their campuses.
House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik has criticized the ruling, stating that “four partisan Democrat operatives on the Colorado Supreme Court think they get to decide for all Coloradans and Americans the next presidential election.”
On the other hand, the dissenting justices, Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright and Justices Maria E. Berkenkotter and Carlos Samour, argue that due process must be followed before depriving someone of the right to hold public office. They believe that even if a candidate has committed past acts of insurrection, procedural due process should be carried out before disqualifying them.
All seven Colorado justices were appointed by Democrats, and while Trump lost Colorado by 13 percentage points in 2020, the concern is that other courts and election officials might follow Colorado’s lead and exclude Trump from must-win states. Numerous lawsuits have been filed across the country to disqualify Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was originally intended to prevent former Confederates from returning to government after the Civil War.
The Colorado case was brought by Citizens for Responsibility, a left-leaning group, on behalf of six Colorado Republican and unaffiliated voters. District Judge Sarah B. Wallace initially found that Trump had “engaged in insurrection” by inciting the Jan. 6 riot, but she ruled that he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear whether the Section 3 provision applied to the presidency.
Trump’s attorneys argued that he was exercising his free speech rights and did not call for violence during the Jan. 6 riot. They also contended that the incident should be classified as a “riot” rather than an insurrection. The Colorado Supreme Court overturned Wallace’s ruling and stayed its decision until Jan. 4, pending a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The deadline for Colorado to print its presidential primary ballots is Jan. 5, so the issue must be settled before then. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the 2024 presidential election and the interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
[Author’s Name] is a reporter for Digital, covering politics, crime, and police-related topics. Story tips can be sent to [Author’s Email] and [Author’s Twitter Handle]. Stay updated with the latest news from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews, and more political content by subscribing to the newsletter.
