A challenge to Donald Trump’s eligibility for the ballot on the basis of provisions of the 14th Amendment restricting ballot access from certain individuals involved in insurrection will see oral arguments next month before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who was not involved in bringing the original case but in whose jurisdiction it originates, has asked in a new filing for the nation’s highest court to uphold prior judicial conclusions in Colorado, which were mostly to the Trump campaign’s detriment.
Among Griswold’s arguments was notably a refutation of any idea that the Colorado Supreme Court stepped in where resolution was appropriately left to state legislators. Prioritizing the given state legislature’s perspective has sometimes been the leading push on the Right. Putting the legislature above the judiciary in determining the handling of elections, results, and related processes allows for a greater role for electoral, partisan politics.
In “resolving this challenge, the Colorado Supreme Court did not arrogate the power of the state legislature under the Electors Clause to itself. Colorado’s legislature specifically directed Colorado courts to resolve ballot access challenges, under a procedure that has been in place for over a century. And the process of statutory interpretation that the Colorado Supreme Court used to resolve disputes regarding Colorado’s Election Code was well within the boundaries of ordinary judicial review,” Griswold said, characterizing the judicial decision that Trump engaged in insurrection and was ineligible under Colorado’s system for moving forward with his presidential run as in line with established legal procedure.
“The dispute was capably and constitutionally handled by the procedures directed by Colorado’s legislature to resolve these precise issues. This Court should affirm and uphold Colorado’s right to exclude from its presidential ballots ineligible insurrectionists,” Griswold’s Supreme Court filing adds. Other written arguments presented to the court from those who directly brought the case specifically challenged the idea that Trump’s arguably tepid references to being peaceful on January 6 meaningfully absolved him of responsibility for setting up and inciting what became the attack on the Capitol.
