Trump Doesn’t Care About a Colorado Primary
The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump’s name may not appear on the state’s March 5 primary ballot because he participated in an insurrection against the United States in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) in Washington, a liberal political nonprofit sued Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold in September on behalf of a group of Colorado Republican and unaffiliated voters, arguing that the former president was disqualified because of his role in the Jan. 6 riot.
Trump’s involvement (or not) on Jan 6 is, legally speaking at this point, unproven. Yes, the case against him as we know it certainly reeks of nefarious intent and is consistent with his overall disregard for rule of law.
Trump’s style of staying aloof from misdeeds done on his behalf may yet yield a “reasonable doubt.” The deleted communications among Secret Service agents from that day could provide an opening for a surprise witness
Practically speaking this ruling is a mere bump in the road for the fascist juggernaut also known as the Republican Party, now just pretending to be more than a cheerleading squad with campaign contributions to dole out.
As I observed the celebration taking place across the seven social media platforms I now track, the realization that too many people have a cartoonish view of the 2024 elections swept over me. No, Batman hasn’t brushed off this existential threat with a batgloved backhand (pow!).
It’s just not that big a deal. Other state courts may agree with Colorado (or not), but this legal maneuvering won’t stop the Trump campaign. Trump’s campaign says it will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. A January 4 deadline looms, as the Secretary of State certifies candidates on January 5.
If the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the matter by January 5, Trump’s name will appear on the ballot for the March 5 primary because the State Court’s ruling will be stayed pending appeal.
As far as the primary goes, the GOP already had an alternative (caucus) plan on the shelf, one that would be in litigation for many months to come. The Trump campaign was also ready, with a victimization-themed fundraising effort in place just hours after the story broke. Bots and spammers were also at the ready, as misrepresentations quickly spread throughout the online world.
There are interesting details to be had, as explained at Daily Kos:
First, none of the judges disagreed that Trump was guilty of insurrection. At least, none of the dissenters mentioned that in their dissents. In other words, the CO Supreme Court ruled 7-0 that Donald Trump is guilty of insurrection. Two of the dissenters simply believed that the disqualification should be decided at the federal level.
Second, while SC justices in CO are not party-affiliated, the 3 dissenters were all appointed by Democratic governors. So much for a partisan witch hunt.
Third, conservative retired judge Michael Luttig was a guest on MSNBC last night. Based on the unassailable arguments in the written opinion, he predicted that SCOTUS will uphold the CO decision.
I disagree with Judge Luttig about a Supreme Court affirmation. If they opt to hear the case, a pro-Trump ruling could be based on technicalities. I’m guessing the “guilty of insurrection” part might be undone due to lack of due process. Or the supremes could say Trump wasn’t acting as an “officer” of the United States.
The former president is charged with offenses relating to what happened on January 6, 2021, and there is growing evidence about his involvement, but the case hasn’t been decided.
Then there is the matter of irony. Trump’s history calling for people he disagreed with disqualified under the Constitution’s standards (see Obama, 2008), along with calling for the prosecutions of his 2016 and 2020 opponents certainly qualifies him in this instance.
If this 14th Amendment exercise is the political farce that Trump says it is, the man he sees in the mirror in the morning certainly played a role in writing the script.
Finally, here’s Jay Kuo:
The Colorado Supreme Court appears to understand that it has an uphill fight, and it picked its rationales and cases with the Supreme Court’s review in mind. At one point in the opinion, the majority cites Justice Gorsuch, who used to serve as a federal circuit judge with jurisdiction over Colorado. In Hassan v. Colorado, then-Judge Gorsuch wrote about “a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”
Smooth move, Colorado Supremes. But it may not prove enough.
***
Wednesday’s Women’s Healthcare News
***
Ohio Republicans working on a total abortion ban in spite of Issue 1 Via Jessica Valenti:
Ohio Republicans aren’t even bothering to hide it anymore: they’re in the middle of crafting a total abortion ban, even after voters decided to protect reproductive rights in the state constitution. And they’re making a plan to fight for it through the courts.
News 5 Cleveland reports that End Abortion Ohio is working behind the scenes with the House Pro-Life Caucus on a bill that would ban all abortions, and make it punishable as a homicide. The group is part of a growing movement of radical anti-choice activists that call themselves ‘abolitionists’—they want full fetal personhood, and for women who have abortions to be prosecuted for murder.
Austin Beigel, head of the organization, has no problem admitting that such a law would be going against the will of the people. (Issue 1 won by huge margins in November.) Beigel said, “I fully acknowledge that [but] voters can decide to do things that are immoral and evil.”
***
Florida Republicans and Democrats Gathering Signatures for Both Sides on Abortion Issue Via Spectrum 13 News
People on both sides of the abortion debate are petitioning for signatures as they work to get constitutional amendments passed. The Florida Supreme Court is considering legal challenges to a 15-week abortion ban and a 6-week abortion ban passed by state lawmakers. If the amendments get on the ballot in 2024, voters could decide the issue.
Republicans in Central Florida say they wanted to make their stance on the issue known after reports surfaced about thousands of registered Republicans signing petitions for a constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would legalize abortion.
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in 2022, leaving it up to individual states to decide the issue. Floridians Protecting Freedom is now trying to gather enough signed petitions across the state to get the constitutional amendment on the 2024 ballot for voters to decide. They must get 8% of registered voters in enough congressional districts to get the initiative considered to be on the ballot. And the group says 150,000 registered Republicans in Florida have joined Democrats in signing the measure.
***
Vice President Harris to kick off 2024 election year with ‘reproductive freedoms tour’ Via CNN
Harris is expected to highlight the true stories of American women affected by the Supreme Court’s decision.
“She will host events that highlight the harm caused by these abortion bans while sharing stories of those who have been impacted,” her office said, and she will go on the offensive against “extremists” proposing a national abortion ban.