14th Amend. Court Case 1 starts tomorrow (10/30) in colorado

Lavender Room
1

Busy morning tomorrow, figured I would get this started tonight, since I was one of the first to talk about it here, and there was lots of never happen, wont ever go to court etc, etc…

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/29/politics/14th-amendment-trial-colorado-trump/index.html

We have cases in Minn. and Michigan also.

Well the judge handed down a pretty clear, smack down to Trumps lawyers on all their arguments for why this should stop.

Some things I am not sure about. This is a Colorado voting policy ruling. Since the states decide how to do their own elections, would this ever get appealed to a federal court? Seems like no since its a ruling on State elections. Unless they sue saying the state rules are not correct, and not directly on this.

It seems from the judges report, the proving insurrection (or that he supported it) is one of the biggest hurdles.

Read somewhere they expect the trial to only take a week. Let the good times roll.

2

From what I have read, after this court makes a decision, there will be an (inevitable) appeal to the CO Supreme Court, bypassing the intermediate court of appeals. From there, the losing side could appeal to the US Supreme Court.

3

Clarification on other trials, Minn start Thursday.

Oral arguments in a case in Minnesota are scheduled to begin Thursday, and lawsuits have also been filed in New Hampshire and Michigan. Separately, Democratic legislators in California asked their state’s attorney general last month to seek a court opinion on Mr. Trump’s eligibility.

Also we are of to a great start in Colorado, Trump lawyers asked judge to recuse herself cause she once donated to a liberal group.

Trump’s campaign said it had filed a motion for the judge in the case, Sarah B. Wallace, to recuse herself because she had made a $100 donation to the liberal group Colorado Turnout Project in October 2022.
She was appointed to the bench in August of that year by Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat. Wallace denied the motion, saying she didn’t recall the donation until the motion was filed and has no preconceptions about the legal issues in the case.

Good article https://apnews.com/...ec414208323785df6e15

gets into the Strength of Colorado and Minn.

Dozens of cases citing Section Three of the 14th Amendment have been filed in recent months, but the ones in Colorado and Minnesota seem the most important, according to legal experts. That’s because they were filed by two liberal groups with significant legal resources. They also targeted states with clear, swift processes for challenges to candidates’ ballot qualifications.
That means the Colorado and Minnesota cases are taking a more legally sound route to get courts to force election officials to disqualify Trump, as opposed to other lawsuits that seek a sweeping ruling from federal judges that Trump is no longer eligible for the presidency.

4

Live stream of the Colorado case: https://live.coloradojudicial.gov/?streamId=35b1db1b-2ccc-47e8-9f59-33cd656391f9
.

5

Live stream of the Colorado case: https://live.coloradojudicial.gov/...e8-9f59-33cd656391f9

Which Denver Court room? Got lucky 209 first one.

6

Busy morning tomorrow, figured I would get this started tonight, since I was one of the first to talk about it here, and there was lots of never happen, wont ever go to court etc, etc…

https://www.cnn.com/...ado-trump/index.html

We have cases in Minn. and Michigan also.

Well the judge handed down a pretty clear, smack down to Trumps lawyers on all their arguments for why this should stop.

Some things I am not sure about. This is a Colorado voting policy ruling. Since the states decide how to do their own elections, would this ever get appealed to a federal court? Seems like no since its a ruling on State elections. Unless they sue saying the state rules are not correct, and not directly on this.

It seems from the judges report, the proving insurrection (or that he supported it) is one of the biggest hurdles.

Read somewhere they expect the trial to only take a week. Let the good times roll.

I hope trump is ruled ineligible to be on the ballot and it is tried all the way up to the supreme court. My only problem is we need a few full on red states to take up this matter. Minnesota, Colorado are leaning heavily democratic, Michigan is on the fence. Would love to see a state like Texas take this up. Take away a couple states he would absolutely have to win in order to have any chance at the presidency.

7

Did they just call the Jan 6 committee report treason-is?

Surprised they are not bringing in any of the Proud Boys

8

So by Republican Party rules, in Colorado, a president can run for more than 2 terms. Its not one of their rules for disqualifications. (the 14th is also missing so they are saying the court can’t intervene)

9

Busy morning tomorrow, figured I would get this started tonight, since I was one of the first to talk about it here, and there was lots of never happen, wont ever go to court etc, etc…

https://www.cnn.com/...ado-trump/index.html

We have cases in Minn. and Michigan also.

Well the judge handed down a pretty clear, smack down to Trumps lawyers on all their arguments for why this should stop.

Some things I am not sure about. This is a Colorado voting policy ruling. Since the states decide how to do their own elections, would this ever get appealed to a federal court? Seems like no since its a ruling on State elections. Unless they sue saying the state rules are not correct, and not directly on this.

It seems from the judges report, the proving insurrection (or that he supported it) is one of the biggest hurdles.

Read somewhere they expect the trial to only take a week. Let the good times roll.

I hope trump is ruled ineligible to be on the ballot and it is tried all the way up to the supreme court. My only problem is we need a few full on red states to take up this matter. Minnesota, Colorado are leaning heavily democratic, Michigan is on the fence. Would love to see a state like Texas take this up. Take away a couple states he would absolutely have to win in order to have any chance at the presidency.

The SCt ruling probably is not much affected by which state(s) the appeal comes from. Presumably his Constitutional eligibility is the same in all states. There are some potential details in terms of the factual record being developed in CO vs another state, but I would guess that the SCt won’t tie its ruling to such details and will look for a more fundamental ground on which to base its opinion.

10

So by Republican Party rules, in Colorado, a president can run for more than 2 terms. Its not one of their rules for disqualifications. (the 14th is also missing so they are saying the court can’t intervene)

Not following the hearing, but Judge Wallace seemed pretty emphatic in her earlier ruling that the Constitutional eligibility rules can’t be evaded by a political party. Maybe a party could have tougher rules than the Constitution but it can’t force the state to put someone on the ballot who lacks Constitutional eligibility. It is strange if they are still pressing that argument. They have much better arguments to make.

11

The SCt ruling probably is not much affected by which state(s) the appeal comes from. Presumably his Constitutional eligibility is the same in all states. There are some potential details in terms of the factual record being developed in CO vs another state, but I would guess that the SCt won’t tie its ruling to such details and will look for a more fundamental ground on which to base its opinion.

Which begs the question: If SCt rules in favor of the state and disqualifies Trump from that ballet, does it automatically take him off all state ballets, since it is a constitutional eligibility finding?

If that is the case, then why would the Trump campaign take that chance? It would seem to allow a few states to disqualify him and then be completely eliminated from the race.

12

Wouldn’t these cases have stronger evidence if/when Trump is convicted in the election interference cases in DC and GA?

13

The SCt ruling probably is not much affected by which state(s) the appeal comes from. Presumably his Constitutional eligibility is the same in all states. There are some potential details in terms of the factual record being developed in CO vs another state, but I would guess that the SCt won’t tie its ruling to such details and will look for a more fundamental ground on which to base its opinion.

Which begs the question: If SCt rules in favor of the state and disqualifies Trump from that ballet, does it automatically take him off all state ballets, since it is a constitutional eligibility finding?

If that is the case, then why would the Trump campaign take that chance? It would seem to allow a few states to disqualify him and then be completely eliminated from the race.

I suppose the SCt has some discretion in how it frames its eventual ruling. But, I doubt the Court would want a situation where he is eligible in some states and not others. That would invite (even more) chaos. Would a Desantis-friendly SOS in FL kick Trump off the primary ballot there? So, the SCt likely would order that no state can keep him off the ballot for 14A reasons — or he is ineligible everywhere. While Bush v Gore may have been a dubious ruling, it showed an understandable appreciation for the practical needs to have a manageable election process.

If Trump loses in the CO SCt it’s hard to imagine him not appealing to a friendly SCt. Leaving such a ruling unchallenged poses two big risks for him: 1) that other blue states will kick him off the primary ballot, and 2) if he gets nominated many states will kick him off the general election ballot. There is risk that an appeal could convert a loss in CO and some other states into a nationwide loss. Given the composition of the SCt, that is probably a risk worth taking.

14

Wouldn’t these cases have stronger evidence if/when Trump is convicted in the election interference cases in DC and GA?

Let’s separate issues of evidence from the results of the cases. In terms of evidence, yes, it is very likely that there will be testimony in the DC case, and possibly the GA case, that would be admissible and useful in one of these 14A cases. One of the problems that the plaintiffs in these 14A cases face is that a lot of the evidence they want is not readily admissible. They can’t (or at least haven’t) compel Chesebro or Powell to come to CO to testify against Trump (and I assume they have not been deposed), but if those people testified in a criminal trial then such testimony would be admissible against Trump in the 14A cases.

In terms of the result, that’s less clear. The GA case has only a remote connection to insurrection/rebellion in DC. If Trump were convicted of conspiring to reverse the GA vote, that might not go very far in proving that he is guilty of insurrection/rebellion in DC – though there are some overlapping elements. Plus, in any event, the GA case against Trump likely won’t occur until late summer at the earliest, given the DC and FL federal cases, so a conviction in the trial court would not occur before the fall election ballots are prepared. The DC case has lots more factual overlap with the civil 14A cases, but it does not involve a charge of insurrection/rebellion. Plus, while the criminal case in DC might be over by May in the trial court, the appeals will drag on well past the time when the fall ballots are prepared.

Regardless of whether the DC and GA cases involve some evidence or results that are influential in the civil 14A cases, those plaintiffs had no choice but to push ahead now. It would look very bad to let him be on the primary ballots and then rule in the summer or fall that he is ineligible for the election. That leaves any SOS open to the attack that you totally messed up the R primary by leaving an ineligible candidate on the ballot. It is very hard to undo that error. It’s best to have a decision pre-primary and just stick with it.

15

The SCt ruling probably is not much affected by which state(s) the appeal comes from. Presumably his Constitutional eligibility is the same in all states. There are some potential details in terms of the factual record being developed in CO vs another state, but I would guess that the SCt won’t tie its ruling to such details and will look for a more fundamental ground on which to base its opinion.

Which begs the question: If SCt rules in favor of the state and disqualifies Trump from that ballet, does it automatically take him off all state ballets, since it is a constitutional eligibility finding?

If that is the case, then why would the Trump campaign take that chance? It would seem to allow a few states to disqualify him and then be completely eliminated from the race.

But these cases, are eliminating him from the Primary, not the election. In theory, he could lose these state primaries, still be the nominee. Then do we have a do over of these trials cause these states wont put him on the ballot since he is not a qualified candidate?

16

Wouldn’t these cases have stronger evidence if/when Trump is convicted in the election interference cases in DC and GA?

Timing, the candidate who brought the lawsuit is claiming him being on the ballot while not eligible, is stealing money and votes from them and weakening their chances of being elected.

So they can’t wait.

Also does election interference in one state rise to the level of insurrection?

17

The SCt ruling probably is not much affected by which state(s) the appeal comes from. Presumably his Constitutional eligibility is the same in all states. There are some potential details in terms of the factual record being developed in CO vs another state, but I would guess that the SCt won’t tie its ruling to such details and will look for a more fundamental ground on which to base its opinion.

Which begs the question: If SCt rules in favor of the state and disqualifies Trump from that ballet, does it automatically take him off all state ballets, since it is a constitutional eligibility finding?

If that is the case, then why would the Trump campaign take that chance? It would seem to allow a few states to disqualify him and then be completely eliminated from the race.

I suppose the SCt has some discretion in how it frames its eventual ruling. But, I doubt the Court would want a situation where he is eligible in some states and not others. That would invite (even more) chaos. Would a Desantis-friendly SOS in FL kick Trump off the primary ballot there? So, the SCt likely would order that no state can keep him off the ballot for 14A reasons — or he is ineligible everywhere. While Bush v Gore may have been a dubious ruling, it showed an understandable appreciation for the practical needs to have a manageable election process.

If Trump loses in the CO SCt it’s hard to imagine him not appealing to a friendly SCt. Leaving such a ruling unchallenged poses two big risks for him: 1) that other blue states will kick him off the primary ballot, and 2) if he gets nominated many states will kick him off the general election ballot. There is risk that an appeal could convert a loss in CO and some other states into a nationwide loss. Given the composition of the SCt, that is probably a risk worth taking.

The challenge with this, in my mind, is that there is no clear remedy at the Federal level to prevent someone in this position from taking office if elected. If we assume that Mr. Trump is guilty of the disqualifying offense laid out in the Constitution, who is going to stop him from taking office? Is the Chief Justice going to decide on his own not to swear him into office? Is Pres Biden going to decide not to vacate the White House? Is the DoJ, or DoD, or some other arm of the Executive Branch going to stop it from happening?

It seems like the only place this can happen is at the State level, since we still give the States the authority to run their elections and determine who they are going to give their electoral votes to. So if SCOTUS or some other court takes away the States’ rights to determine who can be disqualified from their ballots, what enforcement mechanism does that leave us with for the 14th Amendment?

And with regards to the “practical needs to have a manageable election process,” I would be concerned about getting in a position where a candidate who was not eligible was on a ballot, or was nominated, or was elected, and then having to negate the entire election cycle. Seems like a greater harm potential than just having different States decide differently on their ballots.

18

Wouldn’t these cases have stronger evidence if/when Trump is convicted in the election interference cases in DC and GA?

Let’s separate issues of evidence from the results of the cases. In terms of evidence, yes, it is very likely that there will be testimony in the DC case, and possibly the GA case, that would be admissible and useful in one of these 14A cases. One of the problems that the plaintiffs in these 14A cases face is that a lot of the evidence they want is not readily admissible. They can’t (or at least haven’t) compel Chesebro or Powell to come to CO to testify against Trump (and I assume they have not been deposed), but if those people testified in a criminal trial then such testimony would be admissible against Trump in the 14A cases.

In terms of the result, that’s less clear. The GA case has only a remote connection to insurrection/rebellion in DC. If Trump were convicted of conspiring to reverse the GA vote, that might not go very far in proving that he is guilty of insurrection/rebellion in DC – though there are some overlapping elements. Plus, in any event, the GA case against Trump likely won’t occur until late summer at the earliest, given the DC and FL federal cases, so a conviction in the trial court would not occur before the fall election ballots are prepared. The DC case has lots more factual overlap with the civil 14A cases, but it does not involve a charge of insurrection/rebellion. Plus, while the criminal case in DC might be over by May in the trial court, the appeals will drag on well past the time when the fall ballots are prepared.

Regardless of whether the DC and GA cases involve some evidence or results that are influential in the civil 14A cases, those plaintiffs had no choice but to push ahead now. It would look very bad to let him be on the primary ballots and then rule in the summer or fall that he is ineligible for the election. That leaves any SOS open to the attack that you totally messed up the R primary by leaving an ineligible candidate on the ballot. It is very hard to undo that error. It’s best to have a decision pre-primary and just stick with it.

Sort of, from whom the witness list, this is all about Jan 6th being the insurrectionist event.

The other side, is its a republican candidate who brought the lawsuit. The SoS has taken to the courts for clarification on if they should put him on the ballot or not. They are claiming harm in the Primary. If you wait till the actual Presidential election, than one of the other candidates would have to file the lawsuit claiming harm, and then the SoS would be in the same position of hey I am just trying to do my job, and need the courts to tell me is this an elligable candidate or not. If no one objected in the primary, I don’t see that as an issue, come the actual election cause in the primary they put on who the Republican party said were their potential candidates and no one objected. SoS is clear if no objections, its only once the objection is raised that they have to decide, and in this case its complex so they punted it to the courts to make a ruling.

19

The SCt ruling probably is not much affected by which state(s) the appeal comes from. Presumably his Constitutional eligibility is the same in all states. There are some potential details in terms of the factual record being developed in CO vs another state, but I would guess that the SCt won’t tie its ruling to such details and will look for a more fundamental ground on which to base its opinion.

Which begs the question: If SCt rules in favor of the state and disqualifies Trump from that ballet, does it automatically take him off all state ballets, since it is a constitutional eligibility finding?

If that is the case, then why would the Trump campaign take that chance? It would seem to allow a few states to disqualify him and then be completely eliminated from the race.

But these cases, are eliminating him from the Primary, not the election. In theory, he could lose these state primaries, still be the nominee. Then do we have a do over of these trials cause these states wont put him on the ballot since he is not a qualified candidate?

A full do-over should not be necessary. The eligibility issue is the same for the primary and the general. So, a decision on the former would be dispositive of the latter, unless there were some significant change in the facts/law in the interim. (See my earlier post about the potential implications of the DC and GA cases).

20

The SCt ruling probably is not much affected by which state(s) the appeal comes from. Presumably his Constitutional eligibility is the same in all states. There are some potential details in terms of the factual record being developed in CO vs another state, but I would guess that the SCt won’t tie its ruling to such details and will look for a more fundamental ground on which to base its opinion.

Which begs the question: If SCt rules in favor of the state and disqualifies Trump from that ballet, does it automatically take him off all state ballets, since it is a constitutional eligibility finding?

If that is the case, then why would the Trump campaign take that chance? It would seem to allow a few states to disqualify him and then be completely eliminated from the race.

I suppose the SCt has some discretion in how it frames its eventual ruling. But, I doubt the Court would want a situation where he is eligible in some states and not others. That would invite (even more) chaos. Would a Desantis-friendly SOS in FL kick Trump off the primary ballot there? So, the SCt likely would order that no state can keep him off the ballot for 14A reasons — or he is ineligible everywhere. While Bush v Gore may have been a dubious ruling, it showed an understandable appreciation for the practical needs to have a manageable election process.

If Trump loses in the CO SCt it’s hard to imagine him not appealing to a friendly SCt. Leaving such a ruling unchallenged poses two big risks for him: 1) that other blue states will kick him off the primary ballot, and 2) if he gets nominated many states will kick him off the general election ballot. There is risk that an appeal could convert a loss in CO and some other states into a nationwide loss. Given the composition of the SCt, that is probably a risk worth taking.

The challenge with this, in my mind, is that there is no clear remedy at the Federal level to prevent someone in this position from taking office if elected. If we assume that Mr. Trump is guilty of the disqualifying offense laid out in the Constitution, who is going to stop him from taking office? Is the Chief Justice going to decide on his own not to swear him into office? Is Pres Biden going to decide not to vacate the White House? Is the DoJ, or DoD, or some other arm of the Executive Branch going to stop it from happening?

It seems like the only place this can happen is at the State level, since we still give the States the authority to run their elections and determine who they are going to give their electoral votes to. So if SCOTUS or some other court takes away the States’ rights to determine who can be disqualified from their ballots, what enforcement mechanism does that leave us with for the 14th Amendment?

Did you read the judges ruling on Trumps teams reasons for throwing this out.

That is basically what she laid out. The constitution does not make it clear who or when a candidate is deemed not eligible, Therefore it falls to the courts to decide, because its not a given task to congress. I lost the link to here responses but there was lots of qoutes and citings, but thats the short answer.

Which then to me begs the question, based on what limited knowledge i have (which is very limited here)but what I believe to be true.

  1. Constitution gives the states the rights to run their own election’s and process.
  2. In the end the state sends a slate of electors to vote on the POTUS, congress simply certifies those results.

So does the Federal Courts have any authority to tell the states how to run their elections?
But its an interpretation of the constitution so isn’t that SCOTUS job?

Which in the end, is why I find this idea and these cases fascinating is you are getting into a lot of nuances of our election process and who has what responsibility. We the people don’t vote for the President, (not directly) you state electors do. So if a state wants to rule someone inelligable isn’t that the right of the state? Typing and thinking at the same time… could a state does a state have the right to restrict a presidential candidate (lets say a state put an age restriction of have to be under 70 to be a candidate in our state) Do they have the Constitutional right to do that? I don’t know. I know feds have power over between state commerce and a few other things. I don’t know about this. Clearly States have the right to make up their own environmental laws (California and its own CAFE, and other states have joined) Gun laws, federal i guess.