A judge in Colorado has upheld, for now, a legal challenge to the eligibility of former President Donald Trump for the ballot in 2024. The underlying lawsuit is one of several on the basis of Constitutional provisions blocking individuals who previously took an oath of office and then engaged in insurrection from later holding an elected position. The arguments tie Trump to January 6.
The judge, Sarah B. Wallace, rejected arguments seeking to apply legal protections against litigation that is fundamentally out of line with expected legal practice and instead geared towards the silencing of targets’ speech. In general, it strains credibility for Trump’s team to insist that what Trump has done is meaningfully confined to “speech” at all. He directly encouraged his followers to descend on D.C. and then continued to encourage urgent action, even if he never said, “Hey guys, go storm the Capitol please.” The rioters themselves have again and again tied their actions to Trump.
In a notable portion of her ruling, Wallace discussed an exemption for public interest to the legal standards under which Trump was trying to get the case dismissed — accepting instead that the exemption generally applied, meaning public interests were affected. Assuming that the case moves forward and is held up as legitimate, the judge found the question of whether presidential candidates appearing on the ballot are constitutionally eligible to substantially relate to the rights and interests of the general public.
“It goes without saying that, in the abstract, ensuring that only constitutionally qualified candidates can seek to hold the highest office in the country, particularly when the disqualification sought is based on allegations of insurrection against the very government over which the candidate seeks to preside, seeks to enforce an important right which confers a significant benefit to the public,” the judge said last week. “In short, it is in the public’s interest that only qualified and faithful candidates be allowed to seek public office.” Trial in this case is actually scheduled to begin this very month, so the process is moving quickly.
