In the legal battle over former President Donald Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 Colorado ballot, serious allegations of potential bias have emerged against the judge presiding over the case, Denver District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace.
Trump’s attorney, Scott Gessler, dropped a bombshell during Saturday’s proceedings, revealing that Judge Wallace had made a $100 donation to the Colorado Turnout Project. This organization is known for its critical stance against the Republican response to the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, invoking the “insurrection” clause of the 14th Amendment.
Gessler swiftly moved for Wallace’s recusal, arguing that her contribution signaled a predisposition favoring the notion that the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection—a crucial point in the case as the 14th Amendment bars individuals involved in insurrection against the United States from holding office.
More Read
Despite Gessler’s motion, Wallace, at the onset of the hearing, flatly denied the request for recusal, all while distancing herself from the Colorado Turnout Project’s stance on the Capitol attack.
She acknowledged the donation but claimed ignorance of the organization’s mission before assuming her position on the bench. Wallace’s response, however, fell short of directly addressing the code of judicial conduct’s standard for recusal, which dictates withdrawal when a judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.”
The state Supreme Court, in past rulings, has maintained that any appearance of impropriety should only impact an appeal if concrete evidence of bias is presented.
Wallace, who transitioned from private practice to the judiciary in January, emphasized that she had not formed an opinion on whether the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection or if Trump engaged in one.
The core issue in the case revolves around the constitutional definition of insurrection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those involved in insurrection or rebellion from holding elective office. Notably, Colorado law bars judges and judicial candidates from making political contributions.
It’s worth noting that the Minnesota Supreme Court recently ruled against efforts to prevent Trump from appearing on the ballot in that state. The court asserted that neither the judiciary nor election officials had the authority to bar the Republican Party from including Trump as a candidate in the GOP primary ballot. This decision came from five justices, with two recusing themselves.
As this legal battle unfolds, the question of whether Trump’s actions align with the constitutional definition of insurrection remains a central point of contention. With the 2024 Colorado Republican presidential primary scheduled for March 5, a swift resolution to these legal challenges is imperative.
