Bay Area professor weighs in on Colorado Supreme Court blocking Trump from state's ballot
The Colorado Supreme Court threw the political world into uproar by ruling that Donald Trump is legally ineligible to hold the office and must be left off the ballot. Meanwhile, those in the Bay Area are weighing in on the developments.
Colorado's highest court stunned political observers by ruling that Donald Trump is "disqualified from holding the office of President" under Section Three of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
"It has never been used to disqualify a Presidential candidate. It has been used occasionally to disqualify people for lower offices, but not very often," said David Sloss, a law professor at Santa Clara University.
Sloss has followed the Colorado case closely and said there is technical merit to the decision, if it should be reviewed by the current US Supreme Court, which favors interpreting the Constitution by its original wording and intent.
"There is a very powerful argument here that under the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, Donald Trump is not eligible," said Sloss. "And the Court will, at least, give that argument careful consideration."
The "Disqualification Clause" was written after the Civil War to prevent those who supported the South against the Union from holding positions in the federal government. It disqualifies anyone who has previously "taken an oath" to support the nation, if they have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against it.
The Court said that's what Trump did on Jan. 6.
But Sloss said, from a practical standpoint, leaving a prominent candidate off the ballot could cause political chaos.
"We could have a possibility where Trump is the Republican nominee, but he's actually on the ballot in only 35 or 40 states because the other 10 or 15 states say he's not eligible," said Sloss.
So, he recommends that the US Supreme Court quickly take up the matter to create a national ruling. And the Trump campaign agrees.
"The Colorado Supreme Court issued a completely flawed decision tonight and we will swiftly file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court and a concurrent request for a stay of this deeply undemocratic decision," the Trump campaign said.
But for many, there is disagreement over whether Donald Trump is really an insurrectionist at all. President Biden spoke up on Wednesday.
"You saw it all," he said. "Now, whether the 14th Amendment applies, I'll let the Court make that decision. But he certainly supported an insurrection. No question about it. None. Zero. And he seems to be doubling down about everything."
But, of course, many Republicans disagree with him.
"Where is the guilty verdict by a jury of his peers?" asked John Dennis, Chairman of the San Francisco Republican Party.
He feels the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol was a protest that got out of hand, not an insurrection. And doesn't believe that Trump was responsible for it.
"My take on it, of course, is that it's a completely ludicrous conclusion," Dennis said about the court ruling. "There was no trial. There's been no determination that this was an insurrection, much less that Donald Trump had anything to do with it."
He said the ruling is simply rallying more support for Trump among Republicans. And he had a warning for those who may seek to deny Trump supporters the right to vote for their candidate.
"This is serious business. A lot of people are hyperbolic about, 'Oh, this could cause a civil war,' but THIS is an issue. This is a real problem," he said. "If multiple states, even swing states, pull this off, bar him from being on the ballot, now you're looking at some serious civil unrest. Serious civil unrest."
The order to remove Trump from the ballot has been stayed until Jan. 4 to give the US Supreme Court a chance to consider the matter. But, at least in Colorado, the issue might be moot, because state GOP leaders have reportedly announced that they may forgo a public vote and choose their candidate through a caucus process. Since political parties control their own selection methods, they can create any rules they want.
Of course, in the general election, there would have to be ballots cast by the voters. So legal observers believe the Supreme Court is likely to make a nation-wide ruling about whether Donald Trump can appear on ballots in the race for President of the United States.