Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection,’ judge says, but should remain on Colorado ballot | CNN

CNN
 — 

A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot based on the claim that he is constitutionally barred from office because of the January 6, 2021, insurrection.

The major decision issued Friday by Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace comes after judges in Minnesota and Michigan also refused to remove Trump from that state’s Republican primary ballots.

These three high-profile challenges against Trump, which had the backing of well-funded advocacy groups, have so far failed to remove him from a single ballot, with the 2024 primary season fast approaching.

Wallace said she was keeping the former president on the ballot because the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” does not apply to presidents, though she found that “Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.”

The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, says American officials who take an oath to support the Constitution are banned from future office if they “engaged in insurrection.” But the Constitution doesn’t say how to enforce the ban, and it has only been applied twice since 1919 – which is why many experts view these lawsuits as long shots.

The provision explicitly bans insurrectionists from serving as US senators, representatives, and even presidential electors – but it does not say presidents. It says it covers “any office, civil or military, under the United States,” and Wallace ruled that this does not include the office of the presidency.

“After considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that ‘officers of the United States,’ did not include the President of the United States,” she wrote. “It appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”

Legal scholars believe these cases will, in some form, end up at the US Supreme Court. But before that, the GOP and independent voters who filed the Colorado lawsuit in coordination with a liberal watchdog group, could first file an appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.

In her ruling, Wallace concluded that Trump engaged in the January 6 insurrection by inciting his supporters to attack the US Capitol – but that the 14th Amendment’s ban on insurrectionists holding office does not apply to the president.

“The Court finds that Petitioners have established that Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech,” Wallace wrote, referring to the rally at the Ellipse on the morning of January 6.

“Such incendiary rhetoric, issued by a speaker who routinely embraced political violence and had inflamed the anger of his supporters leading up to the certification, was likely to incite imminent lawlessness and disorder,” she wrote.

Trump’s campaign has said these lawsuits are meritless attempts to deploy an “absurd conspiracy theory” to block him from office, especially when he has a commanding lead in the GOP primary and is doing well in head-to-head polls against President Joe Biden.

“We applaud today’s ruling in Colorado, which is another nail in the coffin of the un-American ballot challenges,” Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement. “The American voter has a Constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choosing, with President Donald J. Trump leading by massive numbers.”

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the group involved in the Colorado case, fell short against Trump but succeeded last year in enforcing the “insurrectionist ban” to remove a convicted January 6 rioter from a New Mexico county commission.

Beyond the disqualification attempts, Trump faces state and federal criminal charges in connection with his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. He has pleaded not guilty.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said in an interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett Friday evening that allowing the judicial system to decide “big contentious issues” is “how this country should work.”

“Regardless if Trump is on the ballot or not, he is a danger to American democracy,” Griswold said, adding that the former president’s allegations that the case was “somehow election interference is just the continuation of his lies to the American people about our democracy.”

Griswold did not take a position in the case, but said that she expects the ruling will go through the appeals process, and that she will “follow whatever judicial decision is in place by the time that ballot certification happens” in the primary elections next year.

The case against Trump in Colorado revolved around his history of stoking political unrest, his public call for supporters to flock to Washington, DC, for a “wild” protest on January 6, and his instruction that they march to the Capitol and “fight like hell” to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s victory.

In the eyes of the challengers, these actions clearly rose to the level of “engaging in insurrection” against the US Constitution – which is the bar for disqualification set by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The weeklong bench trial featured firsthand accounts from US Capitol Police officers who were wounded fending off the pro-Trump mob on January 6, video clips of Trump’s incendiary speech before the riot and testimony from an expert on right-wing extremism who said far-right brawler groups like the Proud Boys interpreted Trump’s words as “a call to violence.”

An attorney for the challengers, Sean Grimsley, said at closing arguments Wednesday that “the Constitution does not allow” Trump to return to office, no matter his standing in the polls.

“Our founders have made clear, time and again, that a candidate’s popularity does not supersede the Constitution,” Grimsley said. “The rule of law must apply whether a candidate has no chance of winning election or is a potential frontrunner. The application of Section 3 is at its most urgent when a person who has desecrated their oath to support the Constitution seeks the highest office in the land.”

Trump’s lawyers called witnesses who said his team tried to avoid violence that day and that he had authorized National Guard troops to keep DC safe on January 6.

Even before the trial, they unsuccessfully argued that the case should be thrown out because the allegations against Trump were largely based on his speech before the riot, which they claimed was protected by the First Amendment and did not meet the legal standard for inciting violence.

“They’re making up the standard so that it fits the facts of January 6,” Trump lawyer Scott Gessler said in his opening statement at the trial, adding that Trump “didn’t carry a pitchfork to the Capitol grounds, he didn’t lead a charge, he didn’t get in a fistfight with legislators,” but rather “gave a speech in which he asked people to ‘peacefully and patriotically’ go to the Capitol to protest.”

The trial was also a history lesson in the Civil War, the tumultuous Reconstruction era, the congressional debate over drafting and ratifying the 14th Amendment, and the application of its insurrectionist ban.

Indiana University law professor Gerard Magliocca, perhaps the nation’s top scholar on the provision, testified in favor of removing Trump from the ballot. He explained how thousands of former Confederates were disqualified from office, including some who never took up arms, even one congressman-elect who had only written a letter-to-the-editor advocating violence against Union troops.

The provision says, in part: “No person shall… hold any office … under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

This story has been updated with additional developments.