A lawsuit has been filed by a liberal group in Colorado to prevent former President Donald Trump from appearing on the primary ballot. The argument is that he is ineligible to run for the White House again due to a rarely used clause in the U.S. Constitution that targets candidates who have supported an “insurrection.”
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, on behalf of six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters, filed the lawsuit citing the 14th Amendment. This legal challenge is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
This development adds another layer of complexity to the already turbulent 2024 primary campaign, with the leading Republican candidate facing multiple criminal cases.
Liberal groups have been urging state election officials to bar Trump based on the clause that prohibits individuals who have “engaged in an insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution from holding higher office. However, no state has taken action, and they are seeking guidance from the courts on how to interpret this rarely invoked clause.
While a few fringe figures have previously filed lawsuits in some states using this clause, this is the first significant legal challenge by an organization with considerable resources. It could potentially lead to similar challenges in other states, resulting in conflicting rulings that would require resolution by the Supreme Court.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, expressed hope that this case would provide clarity for election officials regarding Trump’s eligibility as a candidate for office.
The lawsuit argues that the case is clear-cut considering Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss and his support for the assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Trump maintains that he did nothing wrong.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, played a crucial role in securing civil rights for freed slaves and subsequently for all individuals in the United States. However, it was also used to prevent former Confederate officials from assuming positions in Congress after rebelling against the government.
The specific clause referenced in the lawsuit allows Congress to lift the ban, which they did in 1872 as the desire to bar former Confederates declined. Since then, this provision has rarely been utilized.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, along with law professors from both parties, argue that the amendment unequivocally qualifies as a prerequisite for the presidency, similar to the Constitution’s requirement of being at least 35 years old and a natural-born citizen.
Nevertheless, some experts emphasize the unresolved nature of this provision and note that a case involving this issue has not yet reached the Supreme Court.
The clause mentions “presidential electors” as being disqualified if they previously swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and then violated it, but it does not explicitly include presidents. There is debate among experts as to whether Trump’s actions constitute an “insurrection” based on the language in the amendment.
In their complaint, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington asked the court to expedite the matter so that it can be resolved before Colorado’s primary ballot is set on January 5, 2024. The goal is to provide clarity given the widespread interest and ensure that the issue is settled promptly.
A spokesperson for Trump has not yet responded to the lawsuit.
The 14th Amendment was previously used last year to bar a New Mexico county commissioner from holding office after they participated in the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. This marked the first application of the amendment in a century. In 1919, Congress refused to seat a socialist, arguing that the individual provided aid and comfort to the country’s enemies during World War I.
Another liberal group, Free Speech For People, attempted unsuccessfully to use this provision to prevent the reelection bids of Republican Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia and Madison Cawthorn from North Carolina last year.
In Greene’s case, the judge ruled in her favor, while Cawthorn’s case became irrelevant after he was defeated in the primary.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington expects to file more cases in other states, and they anticipate that other groups will do the same. They selected Colorado as the starting point for this legal action because the state allows ballot challenges to go directly to court. Additionally, the organization assembled a notable group of plaintiffs, including a former Republican leader in the state legislature and a conservative columnist for the Denver Post.
According to Donald Sherman, CREW’s chief counsel, another reason for choosing Colorado is a previous legal dispute in 2015 involving a naturalized citizen from Guyana who sued to be included on the state’s presidential primary ballot. The lawsuit claimed that the requirement for presidential candidates to be natural-born citizens was unfair. A federal appeals judge, Neil Gorsuch, upheld the ruling barring the individual from the ballot. Gorsuch is now a Supreme Court Justice.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
