In a recent 4-3 decision, the Colorado Supreme Court has ignited a fierce debate over due process concerns, following the exclusion of former President Donald Trump from the state’s Republican presidential primary ballot. The majority ruling, rooted in a constitutional provision originally aimed at preventing Confederate officials from ascending to power, cited Trump’s alleged involvement in the January 6 U.S. Capitol siege as grounds for disqualification.
Justice Carlos Samour, a dissenting voice, raised significant reservations regarding the procedural aspects of the case. Samour contended that Trump had not faced charges under a statute prohibiting him from office for engaging in an insurrection, thereby denying him constitutional rights akin to those afforded to a criminal defendant.
Expressing concerns about the absence of a fair trial, Samour emphasized the denial of Trump’s opportunity to request a jury of peers. In a written statement, Samour asserted, “There was no fair trial either. I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom.”
More Read
Samour criticized the district court’s handling of the case, particularly disagreeing with the decision not to depose experts and restricting expert testimony. He labeled the case a “procedural Frankenstein,” suggesting it deviated from due process standards.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling emanates from a lawsuit alleging Trump’s involvement in an insurrection related to the Capitol attack—a claim dismissed by courts in Minnesota and Michigan. Trump has indicated his intent to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, with Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump’s campaign, characterizing the ruling as a “scheme to interfere in an election” on behalf of President Joe Biden.
Responding to due process concerns, Cheung accused Democratic leaders of resorting to legal maneuvers to impede Trump’s potential return to office. He stated, “Democrat Party leaders are in a state of paranoia over the growing, dominant lead President Trump has amassed in the polls.”
Despite a previous district judge finding that Trump incited an insurrection but could not be barred from the ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court’s majority, in overturning the ruling, emphasized their duty to apply the law without being swayed by public opinion.
Chief Justice Brian Boatright dissented, arguing that the case lacked merit and contending that Trump was not afforded due process. Boatright criticized the trial’s timeline, asserting that delays violated the requirement for hearings to be held within five days of the challenge being lodged.
As the legal battle persists, the due process concerns and potential precedents set by this case will likely face close scrutiny, holding broader implications for the intersection of constitutional provisions and electoral eligibility. The U.S. Supreme Court’s eventual consideration of the appeal is expected to further shape the narrative surrounding Trump’s candidacy and the legal landscape of future electoral challenges.
