Colorado SC just disqualified Trump from the ballot using the Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 of the Constitution

[Dave_5k]

But who makes the claim that has to be contested to begin with? Who in the primary election system makes the initial claim 'soandso can't be on the ballot'? Can it be you or me?

Colorado, like most states, fortunately has specific laws determining exactly who is responsible for determining eligibility, and who may challenge candidate eligibility for all elections held in the state. In Colorado, that list of potential challengers to eligibility includes Colorado electors - and 6 Colorado Republican electors filed the petition for Trump removal, meeting the requirement for standing.

At least one Trump challenge in another state was summarily rejected due to lack of standing of the petitioner. It is one critical responsibility of every court to determine if the plaintiff actually has standing to even bring the case to that court.

Edit: for clarity, in Colorado an "eligible elector" is anyone eligible to vote in Colorado. And the specific law in reference:

C.R.S. Title 1 Elections, Article 4, 1-4-501 (3)
(3) The qualification of any candidate may be challenged by an eligible elector of the political subdivision within five days after the designated election official's statement is issued that certifies the candidate to the ballot. The challenge shall be made by verified petition setting forth the facts alleged concerning the qualification of the candidate and shall be filed in the district court in the county in which the political subdivision is located. The hearing on the qualification of the candidate shall be held in not less than five nor more than ten days after the date the election official's statement is issued that certifies the candidate to the ballot. The court shall hear the testimony and other evidence and, within forty-eight hours after the close of the hearing, determine whether the candidate meets the qualifications for the office for which the candidate has declared. Provisions of section 13-17-101, C.R.S., regarding frivolous, groundless, or vexatious actions shall apply to this section.

 

[IronWing]

But who makes the claim that has to be contested to begin with? Who in the primary election system makes the initial claim 'soandso can't be on the ballot'? Can it be you or me?

For the primaries, I would think any party member would have standing to bring legal action.

 

[fskimospy]

But who makes the claim that has to be contested to begin with? Who in the primary election system makes the initial claim 'soandso can't be on the ballot'? Can it be you or me?

This is all answered by the CO courts multiple times.

 

[ivwshane]

Just because the foul aren't counted by the ref, doesn't mean he didn't commit them. However, your basketball example is flawed. For it to be eqivalent to what happend with Trump, the referee would have had to say that the player engaged in a foul, which means he committed a foul, and it's counted. The same is true for Trump, he can't be found to have engaged in insurrection and not be guilty of insurrection. It was just a polite way of saying that Trump is guilty of insurrection by the judge.

/face palm

 

[woolfe9998]

Why does it require a court? If someone's known to be 34 and submits to be on the primary ballot, does it hit the court as well? If not, why not?

Ordinarily a person's date of birth is not the subject of dispute, but if there's a legitimate dispute as to when someone was born, then yes, of course that goes to the courts.

 

[ivwshane]

Like the age disqualifier in the Constitution. Being 34 is not illegal it just disqualifies you from getting on the ballot. Why is that so hard to understand?

It’s not hard to understand, I was just pointing out that when you said he was found guilty of participating in an insurrection that this incorrect. Guilty is a legal term that means to be held responsible for the crime committed. He isn’t being held responsible because the punishment is a fine or imprisonment or both along with the disqualification of being able to hold public office.


That said and in the interest of you not creating another post or having another poster respond with the same point that nearly everyone in this thread agrees with, trump doesn’t need to have a criminal trial for his involvement in 1/6 to be disqualified for holding public office.

 

[woolfe9998]

This is all answered by the CO courts multiple times.

In CO, it appears that anyone registered to vote in the state has standing, subject to a deadline to do it. In other states, it may be different.

 

[ivwshane]

In CO, it appears that anyone registered to vote in the state has standing, subject to a deadline to do it. In other states, it may be different.

I tried looking up who brought the case to court but all I can find is that it was by former senators, republicans and a democrat. Is there a source that explains the relationship these people share and how/why they were able to bring a case to court whereas others were told they lack standing?

 

[brycejones]

I tried looking up who brought the case to court but all I can find is that it was by former senators, republicans and a democrat. Is there a source that explains the relationship these people share and how/why they were able to bring a case to court whereas others were told they lack standing?

others were told they lacked standing in CO?

 

[woolfe9998]

Perhaps the confusion over there being no criminal conviction is because Jack Smith, for whatever reason, chose not to charge Trump under this statute:

§2383. Rebellion or insurrection​

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

I can't honestly say why it is not in the list of charges in the 1/6 case, but I'm beginning to wonder if Jack Smith saw these challenges coming, and realized that if he charged Trump under this section, the matter would likely still be pending as of election time and hence the argument would be that he can't be removed from the ballot because he hasn't had his trial yet. And he knew that challenges under 14As3 could be mounted more quickly if they weren't criminal trials.

 

[ivwshane]

others were told they lacked standing in CO?

No, in other states and attempts to remove Trump.

 

[ivwshane]

Perhaps the confusion over there being no criminal conviction is because Jack Smith, for whatever reason, chose not to charge Trump under this statute:



I can't honestly say why it is not in the list of charges in the 1/6 case, but I'm beginning to wonder if Jack Smith saw these challenges coming, and realized that if he charged Trump under this section, the matter would likely still be pending as of election time and hence the argument would be that he can't be removed from the ballot because he hasn't had his trial yet. And he knew that challenges under 14As3 could be mounted more quickly if they weren't criminal trials.

Or he’s building his insurrection case on the backs/conviction of his other cases to ensure he has an airtight case when he does bring it.

 

[woolfe9998]

Or he’s building his insurrection case on the backs/conviction of his other cases to ensure he has an airtight case when he does bring it.

Could be, but I don't think these challengers are adducing any evidence that Jack Smith doesn't already have. The evidence they submitted was the entire 1/6 commission transcript, plus a bunch of live witnesses who were also before that same commission. Smith already has all of it.

I think he may well add it, but look at the timing. If he adds it right after SCOTUS rejects the pending petitions to remove him from the ballot, then I'm probably right that he held off to make way for these challenges. Bear in mind how difficult it would be to mount these ballot challenges with a criminal case pending on the exact same issue. And of course he knows he can add it later.

 

[woolfe9998]

I tried looking up who brought the case to court but all I can find is that it was by former senators, republicans and a democrat. Is there a source that explains the relationship these people share and how/why they were able to bring a case to court whereas others were told they lack standing?

No, not in CO. People were barred in other states based on a lack of standing.

 

[NWRMidnight]

/face palm

you must be looking in the mirror. because your analogy is faulty. It really doesn't matter, as it's a stupid argument. Engaging in insurrection is all that is needed to suffies the requirements of the 14th section 3.

 

[NWRMidnight]

That's for the courts to decide.

The colorado court/judge already decided, and stated he engaged in insurrection. Engaging in an insurrection or a rebellion is all that is needed to sufficiently cover the requirements of the 14th amendment section 3. Anyone trying to argue that Trump did not engage in insurrection is lying to themselves and everyone else.

 

[ivwshane]

you must be looking in the mirror. because your analogy is faulty. It really doesn't matter, as it's a stupid argument. Engaging in insurrection is all that is needed to suffies the requirements of the 14th section 3.

Reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Colorado, like most states, fortunately has specific laws determining exactly who is responsible for determining eligibility, and who may challenge candidate eligibility for all elections held in the state. In Colorado, that list of potential challengers to eligibility includes Colorado electors - and 6 Colorado Republican electors filed the petition for Trump removal, meeting the requirement for standing.

At least one Trump challenge in another state was summarily rejected due to lack of standing of the petitioner. It is one critical responsibility of every court to determine if the plaintiff actually has standing to even bring the case to that court.

Edit: for clarity, in Colorado an "eligible elector" is anyone eligible to vote in Colorado. And the specific law in reference:

C.R.S. Title 1 Elections, Article 4, 1-4-501 (3)
(3) The qualification of any candidate may be challenged by an eligible elector of the political subdivision within five days after the designated election official's statement is issued that certifies the candidate to the ballot. The challenge shall be made by verified petition setting forth the facts alleged concerning the qualification of the candidate and shall be filed in the district court in the county in which the political subdivision is located. The hearing on the qualification of the candidate shall be held in not less than five nor more than ten days after the date the election official's statement is issued that certifies the candidate to the ballot. The court shall hear the testimony and other evidence and, within forty-eight hours after the close of the hearing, determine whether the candidate meets the qualifications for the office for which the candidate has declared. Provisions of section 13-17-101, C.R.S., regarding frivolous, groundless, or vexatious actions shall apply to this section.

So literally in CO can challenge a primary contender? That seems ripe for abuse. Thank you for the information though!

 

[fskimospy]

Could be, but I don't think these challengers are adducing any evidence that Jack Smith doesn't already have. The evidence they submitted was the entire 1/6 commission transcript, plus a bunch of live witnesses who were also before that same commission. Smith already has all of it.

I think he may well add it, but look at the timing. If he adds it right after SCOTUS rejects the pending petitions to remove him from the ballot, then I'm probably right that he held off to make way for these challenges. Bear in mind how difficult it would be to mount these ballot challenges with a criminal case pending on the exact same issue. And of course he knows he can add it later.

I read somewhere that one possible reason is due to one of the arguments that Trump is putting forth now - that in his impeachment trial he was acquitted of insurrection and therefore this would be double jeopardy.

That sounds like a load of bullshit to me but it also seems like something that could delay the trial.

 

[Brovane]

I read somewhere that one possible reason is due to one of the arguments that Trump is putting forth now - that in his impeachment trial he was acquitted of insurrection and therefore this would be double jeopardy.

That sounds like a load of bullshit to me but it also seems like something that could delay the trial.

It is a load of BS. A impeachment trial isn't a criminal trial. No double jeopardy should apply but never know with the current SCOTUS.

 

[ivwshane]

I read somewhere that one possible reason is due to one of the arguments that Trump is putting forth now - that in his impeachment trial he was acquitted of insurrection and therefore this would be double jeopardy.

That sounds like a load of bullshit to me but it also seems like something that could delay the trial.

An interesting side note: Jefferson Davis had his treason trial dismissed because he claimed the 14th sec 3 was punishment and therefore since he had already been punished for participating in an insurrection, any additional punishment would be double jeopardy


I cannot stress this enough but had the electoral college turned out the way the founding fathers intended, none of this would be an issue as the electoral college wouldn’t vote for Trump no matter what the American people wanted.

 

[HomerJS]

Kinda puts the black man’s tan suit in perspective, don't it?

The worst thing Obama did was stand up for Trayvon Martin and now we have this.

We were all told Obama was the evil Kenyan Muslim

 

[HomerJS]

The qualifications for president are:
1) 35 years old
2) natural born citizen
3) has not engaged in insurrection.

None of these qualifications are more or less important than any other and they should be treated identically.

Also a disqualification is not a punishment it’s just a disqualifier. There are millions of people who can’t be on the ballot. What makes Trump so special??

 

[Zorba]

The colorado court/judge already decided, and stated he engaged in insurrection. Engaging in an insurrection or a rebellion is all that is needed to sufficiently cover the requirements of the 14th amendment section 3. Anyone trying to argue that Trump did not engage in insurrection is lying to themselves and everyone else.

Never said otherwise. The court did decide in CO.

 

[woolfe9998]

I read somewhere that one possible reason is due to one of the arguments that Trump is putting forth now - that in his impeachment trial he was acquitted of insurrection and therefore this would be double jeopardy.

That sounds like a load of bullshit to me but it also seems like something that could delay the trial.

Perhaps, though it's a very bad argument. AFAIK double jeopardy has never been applied for anything but a prior conviction in a criminal court. I also don't see it causing a delay, unless the motion to dismiss can be brought and appealed before trial. Maybe it can, in which case if it looks like a long delay he can just drop the charge.

I think there's a chance Smith will add the charge after the ballot challenge is resolved by SCOTUS.