Monday morning, the Supreme Court’s decision to reject efforts to exclude Donald Trump from presidential primary ballots marks a significant development in the 2024 election landscape.
“Activist judges in Colorado and other liberal states believe that the American people should not have the right to vote for the presidential candidate of their choice. This morning, the Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED their attempt to stop Donald J. Trump from running for President! This is a major win against the attempts of election interference by lawfare against Republicans,,” US Rep. Matt Gaetz wrote in response to the ruling.
Last December, the Colorado Supreme Court made history by removing President Trump from the state’s primary ballot, a move later replicated by courts in Maine and Illinois.
With unresolved challenges to Trump’s candidacy looming in 14 other states, the potential disruption to the GOP primaries and the risk of tilting the election in favor of Democrats has been scary.
The attempted exclusion of Trump from the ballot was based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which deals with insurrection or rebellion against the United States government.
The Colorado challenge alleged that Trump deliberately incited the Capitol breach on January 6, 2024, to cling to power. While the District Court initially found Trump guilty of insurrection, it stopped short of removing him from the ballot, arguing that Section 3 did not apply to the presidency.
However, upon review, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that Trump’s actions constituted insurrection and that Section 3 covered the presidency. This decision, ordering Trump’s exclusion from the primary ballot, was contested and ultimately overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The high court ruled that states lacked the authority to disqualify federal candidates or officeholders based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, emphasizing the amendment’s limitations on state power and the historical absence of such precedent.
The Supreme Court’s decision underscored the potential chaos and inconsistency that would arise from allowing states to disqualify federal candidates independently, highlighting the importance of maintaining uniformity and integrity in national elections.
The court warned against the dangers of post-election removal of candidates, which could undermine the democratic process. This unanimous rejection by the Supreme Court reaffirms the fundamental principles of the Constitution and the integrity of the electoral system.
Reaction by court watchers was severe against activist judges and lawyers: