Colorado Supreme Court Removes Trump from State Ballot

[Ralin]

On a state where he actually won electoral votes, so it has teeth. And he was kicked off by a woman.

[bilateralrope]

US Supreme Court officially asked to take up Trump’s 14th Amendment issue

Colorado’s high court ruled Trump was disqualified from the ballot earlier this month.

By ZACH MONTELLARO
12/28/2023 10:42 AM EST
Updated: 12/28/2023 02:24 PM EST

The Colorado Republican Party asked the Supreme Court to reinstate Donald Trump on the primary ballot — officially dragging the nation’s top court into the fight over whether the former president can be legally barred from office.

The state Republican committee asked the court late Wednesday to overturn the ruling issued by the Colorado Supreme Court earlier this month, when it struck Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot. The court ruled that Trump engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, disqualifying him from the presidency under an interpretation of the 14th Amendment — but paused its ruling until the Supreme Court could weigh in.

The state GOP’s petition argues three points: The office of the presidency is not covered by the 14th Amendment, the insurrection clause is not “self-executing” — meaning Congress alone must enforce it, and states cannot make that determination on their own — and that by kicking Trump off the primary ballot, the state Republican Party’s First Amendment rights of association have been violated.

The party is represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative Christian law group. Jay Sekulow, who defended Trump during his first impeachment trial, is the organization’s chief counsel.

The Colorado court’s decision earlier this month to bar Trump from the ballot was a landmark one, supercharging the legal efforts to have Trump barred from office, which has been pushed by a strange bedfellows group of liberal activists and conservative judicial scholars.

Their argument rests on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was passed following the Civil War to stop former Confederates from holding office. The amendment reads that those “having previously taken an oath” to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S. cannot hold public office.

Trump’s legal team has maintained he did not engage in the insurrection in the first place. But they’ve also added that, because of the wording of the amendment, it does not apply to the office of the presidency.

So far, Colorado’s top court is the only one in the country to find Trump ineligible to run. Other state Supreme Courts — like Minnesota in November and Michigan on Wednesday — have effectively punted on the issue, allowing Trump to appear on states’ primary ballots while leaving the door open for further challenges for his general election eligibility.

The justices in the majority in the 4-3 ruling in Colorado noted that they were treading on unfamiliar territory at the time, but ultimately found Trump was culpable for the violence at the U.S. Capitol more than two years ago.

“President Trump did not merely incite the insurrection. Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it,” the majority wrote. “These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection.”

The U.S. Supreme Court does not have any set timeline for when — or if — they must take up the case. But many legal experts have urged the court to weigh in expediently, as to resolve the issue as far in advance of the 2024 election as possible.

The Colorado court also noted that it anticipated the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually take up the issue. “We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory, and that this case presents several issues of first impression,” the majority wrote.

The state Supreme Court said an appeal would automatically continue its pause, and election officials there “will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.”

The Colorado GOP’s appeal this week means Trump will almost assuredly appear on the primary ballot in the state, unless the U.S. Supreme Court issues an incredibly expedient decision. Election officials in the state need to certify the primary ballot by Jan. 5, in order to have time to print and send mail ballots for its March 5 primary.

Both the state GOP and the group of voters who challenged Trump’s eligibility — who are backed by the liberal government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, one of the major drivers behind the 14th Amendment challenges — have asked the Supreme Court to expedite review of the case, should the justices take it up, with the primary calendar fast approaching.

The Court should hear and decide the case on the merits in “an accelerated basis to reduce voter confusion and ensure that primary voters cast their vote knowing whether Trump is disqualified from the Presidency,” the voters’ attorneys wrote in a motion to the court filed on Thursday, asking for oral arguments in the case for mid-January.

We finally have someone going to SCOTUS about it and it's the Republican Party, not Trump, who files the appeal.

It looks like Trump was willing to delay and risk making it worse for his so-called allies by risking disqualification after he wins the primary. Which is the kind of mess that I hope gets SCOTUS to expedite this appeal.

[Tribble]

I wonder how long is it going to take before Republican states retaliate and start blocking Biden from the ballot?

[Solauren]

I wonder how long is it going to take before Republican states retaliate and start blocking Biden from the ballot?

Under what grounds?

[Ralin]

I wonder how long is it going to take before Republican states retaliate and start blocking Biden from the ballot?

Under what grounds?

Fuck you, I'm the Secretary of State.

[bilateralrope]

I wonder how long is it going to take before Republican states retaliate and start blocking Biden from the ballot?

Under what grounds?

For letting too many people to illegally cross from Mexico

Speaking to Fox News, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick suggested Biden should be removed from his state's 2024 ballot due to his administration's response to immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border.

"Seeing what happened in Colorado makes me think—except we believe in democracy in Texas—maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing eight million people to cross the border since he's been president disrupting our state," Patrick said.

Or coming to an agreement with Iran

In an interview on Fox News, former Trump White House senior counselor Kellyanne Conway asked Noem whether she has the power to remove President Biden from South Dakota's ballots for allegedly violating the 14th Amendment by "unfreezing assets for Iran" as part of a prisoner swap deal or, in Conway's words, allowing "terrorists to just openly walk over" the southern border.

Yeah, that's the best they have. So far it looks like they know it's not enough, but think it is for them so spout bullshit and pretend to have the moral high ground.

[Tribble]

I wonder how long is it going to take before Republican states retaliate and start blocking Biden from the ballot?

Under what grounds?

Do you really think Republicans care about what grounds they use? They can pretty much use anything that Biden did/did not do as an excuse.

Edit: Judging from the above posts, looks like it’s already getting started!

Do the Republicans have control of enough states that they could force a Trump “victory” this way?

[Solauren]

Okay, let me rephrase that - Under what grounds, that would survive a Supreme Court challenge if the court wasn't stacked?

[bilateralrope]

Okay, let me rephrase that - Under what grounds, that would survive a Supreme Court challenge if the court wasn't stacked?

For all their talk, they might not even do anything but threaten to boot Biden off a ballot.

Or they might try to kick him off the ballot at the last minute, so there isn't any time to start court action before the deadline at which that states primary ballot must be finalized.

[Solauren]

Okay, let me rephrase that - Under what grounds, that would survive a Supreme Court challenge if the court wasn't stacked?

For all their talk, they might not even do anything but threaten to boot Biden off a ballot.

Or they might try to kick him off the ballot at the last minute, so there isn't any time to start court action before the deadline at which that states primary ballot must be finalized.

Wouldn't that be election interference then? Realistically, anything has to be done before the election 'formally' starts, or else it could be considered election interference. And if they do it that quickly, I think the public backlash would be enough to rush it to the Supreme Court.

Really, Trump being booted off the ballot is based on something that has been in the US Constitution for over a 100 years, and that there is a possibility of him facing Federal charges for. Anything involving Biden he can use the same arguments that the Republics are using for Trump 'immune due to office', and if they strip it from him, they strip it from Trump.

Republicans are many things, but they have the ability to think strategically, and they have to realize that.

And if not? Well, the US is in need of a major overhaul from the top down anyway, so the resulting legal fighting could be a good start.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Okay, let me rephrase that - Under what grounds, that would survive a Supreme Court challenge if the court wasn't stacked?

For all their talk, they might not even do anything but threaten to boot Biden off a ballot.

Or they might try to kick him off the ballot at the last minute, so there isn't any time to start court action before the deadline at which that states primary ballot must be finalized.

It's also possible that they don't want to escalate things too much. They know they're at a popular vote minority and have been for, what, 4 elections now? Removing Biden from a ballot for such blatantly political reasons could see a fairly massive backlash from Republican voters who actually are democratic but align with them on issues like abortion, and for indepednents it might be the final nail in the coffin. And if state-level democrats retaliate, they could start losing any hope of an electoral college majority as well.

[Tribble]

Okay, let me rephrase that - Under what grounds, that would survive a Supreme Court challenge if the court wasn't stacked?

For all their talk, they might not even do anything but threaten to boot Biden off a ballot.

Or they might try to kick him off the ballot at the last minute, so there isn't any time to start court action before the deadline at which that states primary ballot must be finalized.

It's also possible that they don't want to escalate things too much. They know they're at a popular vote minority and have been for, what, 4 elections now? Removing Biden from a ballot for such blatantly political reasons could see a fairly massive backlash from Republican voters who actually are democratic but align with them on issues like abortion, and for indepednents it might be the final nail in the coffin. And if state-level democrats retaliate, they could start losing any hope of an electoral college majority as well.

We are talking about a party that now fully embraces the attempted insurrection and the hanging of their own vice president for not supporting said insurrection. Also a party that is about to nominate someone who openly declares all elections being rigged against him (including ones he won!), supported and encouraged an insurrection, promises to be a dictator specifically to go on a revenge spree to jail and/or kill his opposition and whom paraphrases nazi propaganda.

IMO everything is on the table for the Republicans, as they are now an openly Fascist party. I’m sure if they felt it necessary they would absolutely remove Biden from the ballot, the question is whether or not they feel the need.

Right now it’s a coin toss as to whether or not Trump wins in a rematch, so they might not even have to do anything at all.

And if looks like they are going to lose, odds are pretty good that this time they will just “find enough votes” and/or other voting irregularities to ensure a win in Republican dominated states.

If Democrat states continue trying to remove Trump I can see some Republican states trying to remove Biden out of spite if nothing else.

And IIRC, all they really have to do is block Biden from getting a majority of the electors: IIRC if no one gets a majority, the contingencies in place favour the Republicans as they have the majority of state legislators under their control?

[Broomstick]

I wonder how long is it going to take before Republican states retaliate and start blocking Biden from the ballot?

Under what grounds?

He is not one of them.

Sure, they'll try to dress it up some other way, but that's what it boils down to. There's an element of the GOP that wants one-party rule in the US.

[Eternal_Freedom]

It's also possible that they don't want to escalate things too much. They know they're at a popular vote minority and have been for, what, 4 elections now? Removing Biden from a ballot for such blatantly political reasons could see a fairly massive backlash from Republican voters who actually are democratic but align with them on issues like abortion, and for indepednents it might be the final nail in the coffin. And if state-level democrats retaliate, they could start losing any hope of an electoral college majority as well.

We are talking about a party that now fully embraces the attempted insurrection and the hanging of their own vice president for not supporting said insurrection. Also a party that is about to nominate someone who openly declares all elections being rigged against him (including ones he won!), supported and encouraged an insurrection, promises to be a dictator specifically to go on a revenge spree to jail and/or kill his opposition and whom paraphrases nazi propaganda.

IMO everything is on the table for the Republicans, as they are now an openly Fascist party. I’m sure if they felt it necessary they would absolutely remove Biden from the ballot, the question is whether or not they feel the need.

Right now it’s a coin toss as to whether or not Trump wins in a rematch, so they might not even have to do anything at all.

And if looks like they are going to lose, odds are pretty good that this time they will just “find enough votes” and/or other voting irregularities to ensure a win in Republican dominated states.

If Democrat states continue trying to remove Trump I can see some Republican states trying to remove Biden out of spite if nothing else.

And IIRC, all they really have to do is block Biden from getting a majority of the electors: IIRC if no one gets a majority, the contingencies in place favour the Republicans as they have the majority of state legislators under their control?

True as that is, they also want to win. And I can't imagine they don't have at least a few people with a sense of self-preservation - those who are willing consider a GOP after Trump.

[bilateralrope]

True as that is, they also want to win. And I can't imagine they don't have at least a few people with a sense of self-preservation - those who are willing consider a GOP after Trump.

They do. But I've been hearing that those people are afraid of what the MAGA crowd will do to them if they do anything other than back Trump.

[Ralin]

True as that is, they also want to win. And I can't imagine they don't have at least a few people with a sense of self-preservation - those who are willing consider a GOP after Trump.

They do. But I've been hearing that those people are afraid of what the MAGA crowd will do to them if they do anything other than back Trump.

If they can steal one election by forcing the Democrat candidate off the ballot that would be pretty good proof of concept that they can keep doing so for post-Trump elections. Sounds like winning to me.

[bilateralrope]

Maine Secretary of State says home ‘swatted’ after Trump removed from ballot

In a statement posted to Facebook, Shenna Bellows said she was targeted by a fake emergency call.

By CRAIG HOWIE

12/30/2023 08:33 PM EST

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows on Saturday said her home was swatted amid escalating threats over her removal of Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot.

In a statement posted to Facebook, Bellows said she was the target of a swatting — when a false emergency call results in a strong police response to a residence — Friday night, after her home address was posted online.

“Many of you have asked if Brandon and I are safe,” Bellows wrote. “We are away for the holiday weekend. We were not home yesterday when threats escalated, and our home address was posted online. It was a good thing because our home was swatted last night,” she added.

Maine State Police said an unknown male called a regional communication center Friday evening saying that he had broken into a home in the Augusta area, according to local station WGME13. Police confirmed the home as Bellows’. Officers found the home empty, and an investigation remains ongoing.

At least three Republican members of Congress have said they were the target of swatting incidents this week: Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), and Rep. Brandon Williams (R-N.Y.). No one was harmed in the incidents.

Such episodes have also affected numerous state and local officials both Republican and Democratic, and come amid increasing concern for the security of politicians and lawmakers in an era of heightened partisanship ahead of the 2024 elections.

Bellows on Friday defended her decision to bar Trump from the ballot, telling POLITICO that the former president did not meet the constitutional requirements for holding high office.

Bellows made the call to eject Trump on the grounds that he engaged in insurrection for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, violating the 14th Amendment amid a broader effort to overturn the 2020 election result.

Trump had previously attacked the decision and posted a link to Bellows’ biographical information on his Truth Social account. He further followed a post with the comment: “Fisherman, Loggers, & Lobsterman, who voted for President Trump overwhelmingly, are furious with this non-Lawyer Sec. of State.”

While the Maine Department of Public Safety did not release a motive for the swatting call, Bellows said in an interview with the Associated Press that it stemmed from her decision to remove Trump from the ballot.

The swatting attempt came after her home address was posted on social media by a conservative activist, Bellows said. “And it was posted in anger and with violent intent by those who have been extending threatening communications toward me, my family and my office,” she added.

In the immediate wake of her decision, Bellows said she felt protected by authorities as Maine’s secretary of state.

However, she condemned the swatting and threats in her Saturday post: “This behavior is unacceptable. The non-stop threatening communications the people who work for me endured all day yesterday is unacceptable. It’s designed to scare not only me but also others into silence, to send a message.”

Trump seems to have figured out that he just needs to dox someone he disagrees with and someone in the MAGA crowd will try to kill them.

[Solauren]

Oh please, that's clearly not Trump's doing.

It's to intelligent, not immature enough, and not something he can use to bring attention to himself.

[Tribble]

True as that is, they also want to win. And I can't imagine they don't have at least a few people with a sense of self-preservation - those who are willing consider a GOP after Trump.

They do. But I've been hearing that those people are afraid of what the MAGA crowd will do to them if they do anything other than back Trump.

If they can steal one election by forcing the Democrat candidate off the ballot that would be pretty good proof of concept that they can keep doing so for post-Trump elections. Sounds like winning to me.

Ya, the “win” condition is Trump taking over as president, Republicans don’t give a damn any more how it’s done.

And they already have some plans ready to go (such as Project 2025, which is worthy of its own thread tbh) regardless of who the candidate is.

We’re in for a hell of a time next year.

[LadyTevar]

Ya, the “win” condition is Trump taking over as president, Republicans don’t give a damn any more how it’s done.

And they already have some plans ready to go (such as Project 2025, which is worthy of its own thread tbh) regardless of who the candidate is.

We’re in for a hell of a time next year.

Start the thread. I've not heard of this Project 2025

[bilateralrope]

Oh please, that's clearly not Trump's doing.

It's to intelligent, not immature enough, and not something he can use to bring attention to himself.

It seems consistent with the reasoning behind all the gag and protection orders he's getting in his lawsuits.

[Zaune]

Start the thread. I've not heard of this Project 2025.

Grab a stiff drink before you start reading up on it, 'cause it ain't pretty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

[Tribble]

Ya, the “win” condition is Trump taking over as president, Republicans don’t give a damn any more how it’s done.

And they already have some plans ready to go (such as Project 2025, which is worthy of its own thread tbh) regardless of who the candidate is.

We’re in for a hell of a time next year.

Start the thread. I've not heard of this Project 2025

Sure, I've started one... unfortunately it makes things like the Patriot Act look like Roosevelt's New Deal in comparison

https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic ... 2&t=171287

[Eternal_Freedom]

Well shit. Having read that thread, I withdraw my comments about Republicans (even a few of them) having any sense of self-preservation and don't want to escalate things. Holy fucking shit, that just flops it all out on the table.

[bilateralrope]

Supreme Court to rule if Trump can run for president

2 hours ago

The US Supreme Court has said it will hear a historic case to determine if Donald Trump can run for president.

The justices agreed to take up Mr Trump's appeal against a decision by Colorado to remove him from the 2024 ballot in that state.

The case will be heard in February and the ruling will apply nationwide.

Lawsuits in a number of states are seeking to disqualify Mr Trump, arguing that he engaged in insurrection during the US Capitol riot three years ago.

The legal challenges hinge on whether a Civil War-era constitutional amendment renders Mr Trump ineligible to stand as a candidate.

The Supreme Court's decision to hear Mr Trump's appeal came after attorney generals from 27 states filed a brief asking the court to reject Colorado's ruling.

In it, they argue that removing Mr Trump from the ballot would "create widespread chaos".

"Most obviously, it casts confusion into an election cycle that is just weeks away," reads the submission.

"Beyond that, it upsets the respective roles of the Congress, the States, and the courts."

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution bans anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding federal office, but the former president's lawyers argue it does not apply to the president.

His lawyers have argued: "The Colorado Supreme Court decision would unconstitutionally disenfranchise millions of voters in Colorado and likely be used as a template to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide."

Mr Trump has also appealed against a decision by electoral officials in Maine to remove him from the ballot.

Following the Supreme Court's announcement on Friday, Colorado's Secretary of State Jena Griswold said she had certified the state's ballots for the upcoming presidential primary elections and that Mr Trump's name was on them.

The primary ballots, held in each state, will help to determine which presidential candidates run in November's election.

Colorado's is set for the beginning of March - soon after the Supreme Court decision on Mr Trump's case is expected.

"The United States Supreme Court has accepted the case, and Donald Trump will appear on the ballot as a result," Ms Griswold said in a statement.

The split 4-3 decision by Colorado's high court last month marks the first time in US history that the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate from the ballot.

This is the first time the Supreme Court will consider how to interpret the clause.

Mr Trump is the current Republican front-runner for a likely rematch against President Joe Biden, a Democrat, in this November's election.

Courts in Minnesota and Michigan have dismissed attempts to disqualify Mr Trump. Other cases, including in Oregon, are pending.

The US Supreme Court has a conservative majority - with three justices appointed by Mr Trump when he was president.

But they overwhelmingly ruled against him in his lawsuits challenging his defeat to Mr Biden in 2020.

The court on Friday agreed to take up the case in an expedited manner, with oral arguments scheduled for 8 February.

Mr Trump's legal team is due to file their opening brief by 18 January.

The group arguing for Mr Trump's disqualification must submit its argument by 31 January.

The involvement of the top US court has drawn comparisons to the 2000 presidential election between George Bush and Al Gore, which ended in a lawsuit at the Supreme Court.

The conservative-majority court's decision to halt Florida's vote recount essentially handed victory to Mr Bush.

University of Richmond Professor Cart Tobias says the "exceptionally fast track" was "predictable and necessitated by the growing number of cases being filed in various states around the country".

With state primary elections fast approaching, there is a "compelling need for election officials in many states to prepare" and also they "need for time to plan and execute smooth voting processes on short notice".

Cases at the Supreme Court normally take between four and 12 months - in contrast with the few weeks that justices have currently scheduled.

The timeline makes it likely that the court will issue a ruling ahead of the Super Tuesday primary election in March, when Colorado and many other states hold their election to decide on each party's candidate for president.

On the day of the US Capitol riot, supporters of Mr Trump stormed Congress as lawmakers were certifying Mr Biden's election victory.

That day the then-president held a rally outside the White House where he repeated false claims of mass election fraud as he urged protesters to "fight like hell", but also to march "peacefully" to the Capitol.

Mr Trump's critics argue that he should be disqualified not only for his actions during the riot, but for his and his campaign's efforts to overturn the election result in Republican-aligned states that he lost.

While Mr Trump's alleged efforts to subvert the outcome of the 2020 presidential election are the focus of trials in federal court and a state court in Georgia, he has not been criminally charged with inciting insurrection in either case.

SCOTUS are ruling quickly. Whichever way the rule, getting a ruling quickly seems a good thing.

Question is, how will they rule ?

If they try to figure out what was intended when the 14th amendment was written, it doesn't look good for Trump. I'm not convinced by any of the arguments put forward to say that insurrectionists are allowed to be president but not lower positions.

If they think about politics, they have to ask themselves if it's better for their goals to have Trump, or one of the other people competing for the Republicans nomination, as their nominee.