Tuesday’s shocking decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to preemptively disqualify President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s presidential ballots next year has ignited a chain reaction across the United States.
California and Maine are now actively exploring similar measures to defeat the democratic process by taking the faraway frontrunner in the Republican race off of ballots. While leftists and progressives have hailed Colorado’s order as a “triumph” of constitutional law, the fallout raises profound questions about fairness and political weaponization of government against the people.
California, Maine Exploring Options to Keep Trump Off Ballot Following Colorado Ruling https://t.co/P2IHiOkKmJ
— ✨🪐Jackie Coco💫 (@JackieC49305942) December 21, 2023
Colorado’s highest state court ruled that the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment Insurrection Clause disqualifies Trump from the ballot. The dubious interpretation is now being used as a precedent by other states.
California’s Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis (D), reportedly eyeing a gubernatorial run, has asked California Secretary of State Shirley Weber to “explore every legal option” to duplicate Colorado’s action, thereby disenfranchising millions of Golden State voters. Similarly, Maine’s Secretary of State Shenna Bellows is examining ways to exclude Trump from the state’s primary ballot.
In her statement calling on Trump to be removed from the ballot, idiot California Lt. Gov. @EleniForCA writes “the Constitution is clear. You must be 40 years old and not an insurrectionist.”
It actually says in the Constitution you have to be 35 to be president.
H/t @SonofHas pic.twitter.com/Dl2gZEj1XS
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) December 20, 2023
This unfolding scenario is not merely a legal conundrum but a litmus test for the integrity of America’s electoral process. The arguments presented in Colorado, and potentially in California and Maine, rest heavily on the interpretation of Trump’s actions during the events of January 6, 2021. The Colorado court, backed by a slim majority, took a stance that Trump “engaged in insurrection” — a conclusion hotly contested by his legal team and conservative commentators.
Trump’s lawyers emphasize that he called for protesters to “peacefully and patriotically” let their voices be heard, challenging the narrative that he incited violence. This clash of interpretations is at the heart of the legal battles ahead. Regardless of where one stands politically, the implications of such legal maneuvers are far-reaching. If states begin to disqualify presidential candidates based on controversial interpretations of constitutional clauses, where does this lead the nation’s democratic principles?
While states like California and Maine are considering following Colorado’s lead, the decision is not without its critics. Many conservatives view these moves as politically motivated attempts to sideline a formidable opponent rather than genuine concerns over constitutional adherence. The argument extends beyond Trump’s eligibility, touching upon broader issues of electoral fairness and political partisanship.
The situation is evolving rapidly, with Trump’s team preparing an immediate appeal of the Colorado ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The legal battle transcends Trump’s individual candidacy — it’s a fight for the sanctity of America’s electoral system and the principle that the people have an absolute right to choose their representatives in government.
