Colorado case using 'insurrection' argument to bar Trump from the ballot goes to the judge
apnews.com
A Colorado judge heard closing arguments on whether Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is barred from the ballot by a provision of the U.S. Constitution that forbids those who ā€œengaged in insurrectionā€ from holding office.

A Colorado judge on Wednesday heard closing arguments on whether former President Donald Trump is barred from the ballot by a provision of the U.S. Constitution that forbids those who ā€œengaged in insurrectionā€ from holding office.

The hearing came on the heels of two losses elsewhere for advocates who are trying to remove Trump from the ballot under Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which bars from office those who swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and then ā€œengaged in insurrectionā€ against it. The measure has only been used a handful of times since the period after the Civil War, when it was intended to stop former Confederates from swamping government positions.

Last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court dodged the question of whether the provision applies to Trump, who is so far dominating the Republican presidential primary. It dismissed a lawsuit to toss him off that stateā€™s primary ballot by saying that political parties can allow whomever they want to qualify for primaries.

The court left the door open for a general election challenge if Trump becomes the GOP nominee.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    6Ā·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    DENVER (AP) ā€” A Colorado judge on Wednesday heard closing arguments on whether former President Donald Trump is barred from the ballot by a provision of the U.S. Constitution that forbids those who ā€œengaged in insurrectionā€ from holding office.

    The hearing came on the heels of two losses elsewhere for advocates who are trying to remove Trump from the ballot under Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which bars from office those who swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and then ā€œengaged in insurrectionā€ against it.

    Trump attorney Scott Gessler told Colorado District Judge Sarah B. Wallace during closing arguments that the rulings in Minnesota and Michigan demonstrate ā€œan emerging consensus here across the judiciary across the United States.ā€ Throughout the weeklong hearing that concluded earlier this month, he said the plaintiffs had failed to show that the 14th Amendmentā€™s insurrection provision applies to Trump.

    There are a number of ways the case can fail: Wallace could, like the Minnesota high court, say she is powerless in a primary or, like the Michigan judge, defer to Congressā€™ judgment.

    An attorney representing Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold urged the judge not to dodge the constitutional issues by ruling, as the Minnesota Supreme Court did, that she did not have the power to remove someone from a primary ballot

    The petitioners in the case called a legal scholar who testified that the authors of Section 3 meant it to apply even to those who offered aid to the Confederate cause, which could be as minimal as buying bonds.

    The original article contains 948 words, the summary contains 259 words. Saved 73%. Iā€™m a bot and Iā€™m open source!