Three justices served a stinging dissent in response to the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 Colorado ballot over the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist” ban.
In a 4-3 ruling, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled to disqualify Trump from the 2024 election, deciding that the former president violated the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist” ban. Three justices dissented from the majority opinion, disagreeing with how the court used its power, the timeline in which it made the decision and warning of what nationwide repercussions the decision could cause. (RELATED: ‘Outrageous Form Of Lawfare’: Social Media Explodes After Colorado Supreme Court Tosses Trump Off Ballot)
“I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom,” Justice Carlos Samour wrote in his dissent.
Samour argued with how the court applied the state’s law though the justice said he was in agreement with the majority that the Constitution blocks those who have previously taken office and engaged in insurrection from taking public office once again. The majority, Samour wrote, applied Colorado’s state law “as an engine to provide the necessary thrust to effectuate” the federal insurrection ban.
In the majority’s decision the justices acknowledged the weight that their ruling would have, though Samour blasted the decision. The justice warned that because other states do not have the same election laws as Colorado, it’s possible that nationwide the former president could be disqualified from all 2024 election ballots, a move that would ensure “chaos in our country.”
For real though I think if SCOTUS overturns it will be on these grounds identified by Justice Samour. pic.twitter.com/wIGHJ4dSup
— Jarvis (@jarvis_best) December 19, 2023
Chief Justice Brian Boatright and Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter both echoed Samour’s concerns about how Colorado’s state law was applied in the ruling.
Boatright admitted that he would have dismissed a challenge to whether Trump should be eligible to be on the 2024 ballot. The chief justice additionally argued that the state’s election law was not used properly as it was not “enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection.”
“The questions presented here simply reach a magnitude of complexity not contemplated by the Colorado General Assembly for its election code enforcement statute,” Boatright wrote.
As the former president has yet to be criminally convicted, the chief justice additionally argued that the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling is too early, adding that the justices should’ve allowed more time for the situation to play out. Samour agreed with this in his dissent, arguing that the timeline in which the majority ruling was made “flies in the face of the due process doctrine.”
Berkenkotter criticized the court’s ruling, going as far as to say that she didn’t believe that a state Supreme Court even had the power to decide whether Trump, or any other presidential candidate, could be disqualified from any election ballot under the “insurrection ban.” Instead, the majority applied their power “too broadly,” Berkenkotter wrote.
Today’s ruling attempting to disqualify President Trump from the Colorado ballot is nothing but a thinly veiled partisan attack.
Regardless of political affiliation, every citizen registered to vote should not be denied the right to support our former president and the… https://t.co/yMm4wTb1K8
— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) December 20, 2023
Following the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, GOP presidential candidates rushed to defend the former president, with Vivek Ramaswamy being the first to say he would stay off the ballot in protest of the decision. The Trump campaign immediately disputed the ruling and said they would be appealing the decision.
“This can’t possibly be the outcome the framers intended,” Samour wrote about the decision.
