New Delhi, Dec 20: Colorado’s Supreme Court has ruled, with a narrow 4-3 majority, that former President Donald Trump cannot run for the state’s presidential primary election scheduled for March 5, 2024. The court cited a constitutional insurrection clause, marking the first-ever use of Section 3 of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment to disqualify a presidential candidate.
The ruling stems from Trump’s alleged involvement in the US Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, where his supporters stormed Congress during the certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory. The court’s decision, currently on hold until next month pending appeal, applies solely to Colorado but could impact the general election in the state next November.
While the Trump campaign vows to appeal to the US Supreme Court, critics argue the decision is “completely flawed.” The court comprised entirely of justices appointed by Democratic governors, emphasized its duty to apply the law impartially and without being swayed by public reaction.
The ruling raises constitutional questions, as it relies on the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban. Initially, a lower court judge in Colorado had ruled that this ban did not apply to presidents, as the section did not explicitly mention them. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, stating that Trump’s actions before the riot constituted a “call to his supporters to fight.”
The decision’s impact on the broader political landscape is already evident. Republican lawmakers condemn it as a “thinly veiled partisan attack,” while Trump’s campaign calls it an attempt to undermine the former president’s lead in the polls. On the Democratic side, there is a belief that the ruling supports the argument that the Capitol riot was an attempted insurrection, showcasing the differences between Trump and Biden.
As the legal battle continues, the Colorado Republican Party threatens to withdraw from the state’s primary process if the ruling stands, adding another layer of complexity to an already contentious situation. The outcome of this case could potentially set a precedent with far-reaching implications for presidential candidates in future elections.