U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 13, 2023 01:52 PM UTC

Team Trump Fails To Kill 14th Amendment Lawsuit

  • 10 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
The ex-President.

The Denver Post’s Nick Coltrain updates on the ongoing case of Andersen v. Griswold, filed by a group of Republican and unaffiliated voters seeking to force Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold to remove ex-President Donald Trump from the 2024 Republican primary ballot under the 14th Amendment’s Insurrection Clause:

Trump’s lawyers argued in September that the lawsuit was an attempt to infringe on his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. They sought to dismiss the claim under a Colorado law aimed at protecting people from frivolous lawsuits for exercising that right.

Without ruling on the merits of the case, Denver District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled Wednesday that “in short, it is in the public’s interest that only qualified and faithful candidates be allowed to seek public office,” and that an exemption to that law applied.

“It goes without saying that, in the abstract, ensuring that only constitutionally qualified candidates can seek to hold the highest office in the country, particularly when the disqualification sought is based on allegations of insurrection against the very government over which the candidate seeks to preside, seeks to enforce an important right which confers a significant benefit to the public,” Wallace wrote.

The court ruled that the suit does not meet the definition of a so-called Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP suit), which Colorado law does afford some protection from if ruled to be a frivolous suit meant to suppress dissent from those who don’t have the resources to fight in court. Trump most certainly does have the resources for as many legal battles as necessary, and the judge ruled that a proper resolution of the case is in the public interest.

As AP reports via the Colorado Sun, the case now goes to trial at the end of this month on the merits:

The Colorado case will focus in part on the meaning of “insurrection” under the 14th Amendment, whether it applies only to waging war on the U.S. or can apply to Trump’s goading of a mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to halt the certification of President Joe Biden’s win…

Trump swore a presidential oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, but the text of the 14th Amendment says it applies to those who have sworn oaths to “support” the Constitution, [attorney Geoffrey] Blue pointed out the semantic difference in an Oct. 6 filing in the case.

Trump attorney Geoffrey Blue, the partner of former Republican Secretary of State and election conspiracy theorist before it was cool Scott Gessler, intends to argue that the 14th Amendment was “never intended” to be enforced against a President of the United States, that the violence to overturn the 2020 election results on January 6th, 2021 does not qualify as an “insurrection,” and that minute wording differences between the oath taken by the President and that specified in the 14th Amendment mean it doesn’t apply to the very top. Colorado’s lawsuit has now been joined by similar efforts in Minnesota and Michigan, and are primed to make their way quickly before the U.S. Supreme Court for a final determination on how–and whether ever–the Insurrection Clause should be enforced.

Right after the Civil War when the 14th Amendment was drafted, insurrection was not a “political question.” It was a question of national survival. This lawsuit is seeking an answer to a very basic question: whether violence should be an acceptable option for resolving political disputes.

There can be no more fundamental public interest.

Tweet
Share

Comments

10 thoughts on “Team Trump Fails To Kill 14th Amendment Lawsuit”

    2. I think we have seen that's not the case. Regardless of how we vanquish him over and over again there will be generations claiming his name. Abandon the fantasy of the clean win and Republican acceptance. 

  3. “Day 3 

    We’re more than halfway done with the evidentiary hearing making the case in court that Donald Trump is disqualified from the Colorado ballot for inciting insurrection.

    Today, we called two of our last witnesses who testified about the history of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and how the secretary of state’s office determines eligibility for the Colorado ballot. One final witness of ours will testify on Friday.

    After our witnesses testified, Trump’s attorneys asked the judge to throw out our lawsuit rather than having the case proceed by presenting their evidence. The judge dismissed their motion and said she was not yet prepared to decide on “significant legal issues, many of which have never been decided by any court.” Trump’s attorneys then called their first witnesses to make their case that Trump should be allowed on the ballot.

    Witnesses Called by Plaintiffs

    • Professor Gerard N. Magliocca, of Indiana University McKinney School of Law served as an expert witness on the history and meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution
    • Hilary Rudy, the Deputy Director of Elections for the Colorado secretary of state’s office testified about the process for certifying candidates for the ballot in Colorado and precedent for barring ineligible candidates

    Witnesses Called by Defendants

    • Kash Patel, senior national security advisor to Donald Trump and former Trump administration official
    • Katrina Pierson, former spokesperson for Trump who helped organize  the rally at the Ellipse on January 6th, 2021

    Key Moments

    “Magliocca said the historic record for the clause also includes judicial opinions and writings from U.S. Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who in 1867 was tasked with interpreting the military reconstruction acts of Congress. ‘Insurrection was understood broadly to include any voluntary act in furtherance of an insurrection against the Constitution, including words of incitement.’” —CPR

    “Federal prosecutors, military occupation officials, state courts and Congress itself used [Section Three] to remove or bar from office large numbers of ex-Confederate legislators, judges and executive-branch officials. ‘It was not intended as punishment,’ Magliocca said in testimony Wednesday. ‘This was simply adding another qualification because of the events that had occurred.’” — Colorado Newsline 

    “Plaintiffs also called on a second expert witness Wednesday, Deputy Director of the Colorado Secretary of State Office Hilary Rudy, about the office’s role in potentially taking Trump off the presidential ballot. ‘It is the secretary’s position that if we have affirmative knowledge that a candidate is ineligible for office then we will not certify them to the ballot,’ Rudy said.” —The Hill 

    Livestream

    C-SPAN aired today’s portion of the trial in full…
     

    Thanks for following along during our 14th Amendment trial challenging Donald Trump’s ballot eligibility in Colorado. We’ll be back tomorrow with more updates. “

    CREW

    1. So if Colorado keeps TFG off the ballot, will it affect his electoral vote at all? I’d guess not, since Colorado’s 9 ( now 10) votes haven’t gone to a Republican presidential candidate in at least a decade.

      It could create precedent for other states, though.

      Now if one of the swingier states kicks him off the ballot, that could be huge.

  4. Day 4 

    "Today, our trial in Colorado challenging Donald Trump’s eligibility for the ballot continued with more testimony from the defense. Witnesses called by Trump’s team described the “Stop the Steal” rallies leading up to and on January 6th, and claimed the crowd was overwhelmingly "peaceful" and "patriotic."

    The defense also called other witnesses who went to the rally but did not engage in violence. It also called Representative Ken Buck who revealed that he wanted to participate in the January 6th Committee, but then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy would not allow him to.

    Tomorrow will be the last day of witness testimony in the trial. Next week, we have a deadline to file proposed factual and legal findings, and then we expect to make closing arguments the following week.

    Witnesses Called by Defendants

    • Amy Kremer, founder of Women for America First, a pro-Trump group that organized “Stop the Steal” bus tours, ending in Washington DC on January 6th
    • Thomas Van Flein, general counsel and chief of staff to Congressman Paul Gosar
    • Tom Bjorklund, treasurer of the Colorado Republican Party who testified as a private citizen and attendee of the January 6th rally
    • Representative Ken Buck

    Key Moments

    “Amy Kremer, an organizer of the Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse, called the rally attendees ‘freedom-loving citizens’ and ‘happy warriors,’ and said she had seen no indication of violence or violent intent while Mr. Trump was speaking. Under cross-examination, she acknowledged that she had been inside the area that required magnetometer scans, and that she would not have seen anything that happened outside that area.” —The New York Times

    “[Kremer] maintained that people were ‘happy’ and ‘full of love.’ Van Flein made similar comments during his testimony. ‘It was more like a festival than a rally,’ Van Flein said. ‘There was no anger.’ During cross examination, lawyers for the plaintiffs drew attention to the fact that both witnesses were unable to view everyone in attendance at the rally, nor did they know who everyone was. Reports and testimony delivered after Jan. 6 indicate that far-right militia groups attended the rally, where weapons were also present.” — The Messenger

    “Bjorklund says he joined his brother there and the pair intended to also go camping. It was his first ever visit to Washington D.C. ‘Everybody was just there having a good time, listening to speeches.’ He says Trump was funny and very entertaining.” — CPS

    “Buck described a chaotic scene on Jan. 6 as Capitol Police attempted to barricade the House chamber from approaching rioters. ‘A police officer came to the microphone and said that tear gas had been dispersed. And we were advised that there were gas masks under our seats and we should deploy those gas masks,’ Buck said. ‘There was clear indication that there was a danger at that point.’” — The Hill

    Livestream

    C-SPAN aired today’s portion of the trial in full, which you can watch here. "

    CREW 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

107 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!