Colorado voters pushing for the exclusion of former President Donald Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballot, citing his alleged involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack, have escalated their legal efforts.
In a recent brief presented on Friday, these voters contended that Trump deliberately orchestrated and incited the violent mob to hinder the counting of electoral votes against him, branding it as an act of insurrection against the Constitution.
While the Colorado Supreme Court had already ruled against Trump on December 19, a decision he promptly appealed, the ruling is currently on hold as the case advances to the Supreme Court. This allows Trump to maintain his position on the ballot leading up to the March 5 Republican primary.
More Read
The upcoming oral arguments, scheduled for February 8, are anticipated to address several legal questions, including the applicability of constitutional language to presidential candidates and the authority to determine if someone engaged in insurrection.
Trump’s legal team, in a brief submitted on January 18, presented various grounds challenging the Colorado court’s decision. They argued that the constitutional provision in question pertains solely to those seeking to serve as an “officer of the United States,” asserting that the president does not fall under this category. Additionally, they claimed that Trump did not engage in insurrection, contending that only Congress holds the authority to enforce the relevant provision.
In their brief filed on Friday, the challengers countered Trump’s legal arguments, emphasizing the political nature of his position. They seized upon Trump’s assertion that a ruling against him would “unleash chaos and bedlam,” pointing to the events of January 6 as evidence of his capacity for such actions.
The challengers argued that Section 3, the constitutional provision at the core of the case, is specifically designed to prevent individuals like Trump, whom they label as “oath-breaking insurrectionists,” from wielding power that could lead to further mayhem.
The legal challenge, initiated on behalf of six Colorado voters – four of whom are Republicans – was filed by the left-leaning government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, along with two law firms.
The case has become a focal point in the ongoing debate over the consequences and legal repercussions for those involved in the events surrounding the Capitol attack.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments, the outcome of this case could have significant implications not only for Trump’s political future but also for the interpretation of constitutional provisions related to insurrection and the eligibility of candidates seeking federal office.
The decision will undoubtedly contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding accountability for the events of January 6 and the broader implications for the American democratic process.
