The Colorado Supreme Court finds itself entangled in a crucial deliberation, assessing whether the allegations tying former President Donald Trump to the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot should result in his exclusion from the state’s 2024 presidential ballot.
Legal luminary Derek T. Muller, a distinguished law professor at the University of Notre Dame, has presented a compelling argument that draws parallels with a 1968 case involving Eldridge Cleaver, a candidate for the Peace and Freedom Party. Muller’s amicus brief, reported by Newsweek on Friday, December 8, suggests that Cleaver’s exclusion from the California ballot in 1968, due to not meeting the minimum age requirement of 35, could serve as a precedent for Trump’s case.
Despite Cleaver’s eligibility during a potential four-year presidential term, the exclusion endured, showcasing a historical instance where a state denied ballot access based on constitutional qualifications.
More Read
“This case demonstrates the fact that a state did exclude a candidate from the ballot for failure to meet the qualifications for office. And intriguingly, California excluded Cleaver even though Cleaver would become eligible during the four-year [presidential] term of office,” emphasized Muller in his briefing.
Muller’s legal analysis challenges Trump’s assertion that states lack the power to judge the qualifications of candidates, suggesting that historical records indicate otherwise.
The comparison with Cleaver’s case raises questions about whether Trump’s alleged involvement in the Capitol riot could render him ineligible under the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause, which prohibits individuals engaged in insurrection from holding office.
In a recent ruling, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace found that Trump incited the January 6, 2021 riot but allowed him to remain on Colorado’s primary ballot, citing uncertainty about the applicability of the disqualification clause to the presidency.
The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear appeals from both Trump and his opponents, with oral arguments held on December 6.
Muller acknowledges that the odds of Trump’s exclusion from the ballot are low, recognizing the challenging task before the Colorado Supreme Court. “There are a number of things that the Colorado Supreme Court must find to exclude him from the ballot, but any one thing in Trump’s favor can keep him on,” noted Muller.
The implications of this legal battle extend beyond Trump’s individual case, raising broader questions about the authority of states to determine the eligibility of presidential candidates based on constitutional criteria.
As the Colorado Supreme Court navigates this complex legal terrain, the outcome could shape the electoral landscape and set a precedent for future challenges to presidential eligibility.
The eyes of the nation are on this case, as it unfolds, with potential ramifications for the 2024 presidential election and the interpretation of constitutional qualifications for office.
