The supreme court of this American state points to the responsibility of the former head of state in the assault on the Capitol in January 2021, and considers that by virtue of a passage in the Constitution of the United States, he “does not is not qualified to hold the office of president.
Published
Reading time: 5 min
:quality(50)/2023/12/20/063-1868622479-658301cf7490a341878319.jpg)
An unprecedented decision, in a presidential campaign already marked by numerous legal cases. The Colorado Supreme Court declared, Tuesday, December 19 in a ruling (in PDF), that Donald Trump, big favorite for the Republican primaries, was no longer eligible for the presidency of the United States in this state. At issue: the role of the former American president in the assault launched against the Capitol by his supporters, on January 6, 2021 in Washington, at the time of the certification of the results of the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.
“This is a major and extraordinary decision by a state supreme court, estimates professor of law and political science Derek Muller, quoted by the New York Times. Never in history has a presidential candidate been barred from voting under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.” of the American Constitution. Franceinfo answers three questions raised by this court decision, less than a month before the start of the process of nominating the Republican candidate for the 2024 presidential election.
1 Why is Trump declared ineligible in Colorado?
This legal action began in September, recalls the New York Times. Six voters, two independents and four Republicans launched this procedure against Donald Trump (in PDF) in collaboration with the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) association. For the plaintiffs, the former leader and current candidate “is disqualified under Section No. 3 of the 14th Amendment” of the Constitution. This provides that a person having “participated in an insurrection or rebellion” against the supreme American law, after taking an oath for the “sustain”, cannot be eligible again. The people initiating this action note that Donald Trump took the oath of office at his inauguration on January 20, 2017, and that the assault on the Capitol did indeed constitute “an insurrection against the American Constitution.”
At first instance, November 17 (in PDF)Justice Sarah Wallace said the candidate, rejecting his defeat in the November 2020 election, had “acted with the specific intent of inciting political violence and directing it toward the Capitol for the purpose of preventing certification of the election” by Joe Biden. However, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply, according to her, to the case of a former president. For the magistrate, the mention of “official of the United States” in this amendment “does not include the President of the United States.” “The absence of the president from the list of positions for which the amendment applies”, and the fact that the presidential oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, and not of the “sustain” as the amendment says, lead him to the following conclusion: the authors of this passage were not targeting a person who had taken the oath of office as president.
On Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court decided otherwise. By a majority of four votes to three, the highest court of this American state concludes that Donald Trump “is not qualified to hold the office of President.” And adds: “Given that he is disqualified, it would be an unlawful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to register him as a candidate in the presidential primary.”
2 What are the reactions after this decision?
“We won !”, congratulated on the social network the Crew association. In a press release, its president, Noah Bookbinder, welcomed a ruling “not only historic and justified, but necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country.” The Trump camp, on the contrary, denounced a stop “deeply undemocratic”. “We will quickly go to the Supreme Court of the United States and request a stay of this decision,” announced the candidate’s campaign spokesperson, Steven Cheung. “We are fully confident that the United States Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor.”
In their decision, the justices of the Colorado Supreme Court, although saying “aware of moving into unknown territory”, anticipated such a scenario. They ordered state election officials to remove Donald Trump’s name from the ballots for the Republican primaries. But they suspended this injunction until January 4, the last day before the certification of the ballots for the primaries, in the event of an appeal before then before the Federal Supreme Court. In the case of an appeal before the highest judicial body in the country, the suspension “will remain in effect and the election official must still include President Trump’s name on the 2024 primary ballot, until she receives any injunction or mandate from the Supreme Court.”.
What will be the response given by the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority? For the specialist in American politics and history Lauric Henneton, its members “can hardly not come to a decision, one way or the other, quickly.” “They can also say that it is not their responsibility, or return to the first instance ruling,” he believes. But it is nevertheless “likely” that the Supreme Court, given its rather conservative position, “finds a way to protect Donald Trump from the application of paragraph 3 of the 14th Amendment.”
3 Can there be similar rulings in other states?
Legal actions have been launched in several other states concerning the eligibility of Donald Trump for the next presidential election. As reported by New York Times, The Minnesota Supreme Court has already rejected a suit similar to the one that succeeded in Colorado. In a ruling issued in November, it ruled that courts or election officials could not prevent the Republican Party from presenting Donald Trump as its candidate for the primaries. A New Hampshire state judge also rejected a similar request, as did a Michigan magistrate. In this state, the plaintiffs appealed.
In the opinion of Lauric Henneton, the decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado “may very well be an exception, something which remains of the order of a unique event” and which will not necessarily be followed by other States. He also notes that “if the Federal Supreme Court decides before”, this will carry more weight than decisions pronounced locally.