Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office | Hacker News Reader

Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

reuters.com

36 pointsoblib42 comments

Open articleView on HN

Link to the actual decision (PDF):

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24233451/colorado-sup...

I know politics is on the list of things not to post, but I think this qualifies for the exceptions to that.

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics

Most, not all.

It doesn't.

This is entirely political, unrelated to tech and can be found on mainstream news.

Lawfare is definitely interesting to hackers.

Electing Democrats had a huge effect on Figma employees. US bowing to EU regulators? No pressure or response from the US?

bowing, or deferring, perhaps the US saved a bunch of money on legal fees

everyone pretty much thought it wasn't going to be allowed anyway based on the initial rulings. Adobe and Figma spent a year trying to find concessions to satisfy regulators and didn't, thus they gave up

> unrelated to tech

If you look at the rules, this site is not about tech. It is just popular topic.

I find wading into constitutional law pretty interesting, and we ought to be informed citizens if we want our democracy to thrive

If we can talk about the case (it's a big one with big implications for the US), on merit and about the arguments being made, so that we might better understand how our country works, that seems like a valid topic to discuss within the HN community.

I reviewed the guidelines here again before posting this and it meets them. This is really a huge, and rare, and thus historic event for the U.S. and State governance.

If I recall correctly there are several other States that have been pondering keeping Trump off their ballots as well. All those States have had laws that cover this for a very long time, but as far as I know none have ever exercised them to keep a Presidential candidate off their ballots.

This is just lawfare

I'm no Trump supporter, but I find this decision very undemocratic. Seven judges have the power to prevent someone from being voted for by the people?

Well, perhaps people seeking leadership positions should distance themselves from situations where they may violate laws which cause the effect of losing the ability to be a candidate. Or, as the kids say these days, fuck around and find out.

> perhaps people seeking leadership positions should distance themselves from situations where they may violate laws

Ironically, after watching proceedings and reading opinions from several Trump cases, I think Trump is having a hard time finding good lawyers because the good ones are distancing themselves from situations where they may violate laws which cause the effect of losing their ability to practice law. i.e. They don't want to fuck around and find out

It's more that there are a bunch of people arguing and filing briefs if a person falls within the purview of the law. It's not just 7 people, those judges were appointed by elected officials, so the people have had a say in how we got to here.

By and large, the constitution grants wide privilege for states to decide how they run their elections, and how they validate whether a person is qualified. I'm watching the actual proceedings right now, they arguments are interesting so far.

This is also the same thesis underlying the ability to do mass mail in voting during a pandemic and the increasing coalition of states that intend to honor the national popular vote rather than the results of their state.

> By and large, the constitution grants wide privilege for states to decide how they run their elections, and how they validate whether a person is qualified.

Do you have any historical precedent in which the population of a state have legally been denied the right to vote for one of the premier candidates of a major election a la the President? The only cases I'm familiar with is that historically entire subsections of the citizenry have not been allowed to vote: landless, blacks, women. Most don't think of those times as ideals to emulate.

Unprecedented times don't constrain us to the historical events. And we have a Constitution which we follow when unprecedented times do arise. If we don't want to follow the Constitution, fine, but there is a process defined in it for doing that as well, as unlikely as it seems in modern times. Clearly, while there is some room for discussion about the law as written, it seems like reasonable people believe this is one of those unprecedented times and are applying the law.

The Amendment (and argument) at the core of this is the 14th amendment, as was passed at the end of the civil war. Section 3, "the sedition clause" was largely enacted to prevent the leaders of the south and the rebellion from holding office ever again. This is part of the argument the lawyers supporting the ban draw on. That when they wrote the law, the discussions about it, and how they used the words in 1868, most certainly sought to include the office of the president from those positions that a person, if found guilt of breaking their oath to uphold the constitution, in the list of offices and similar roles that said person would never again be allowed to hold. Jefferson Davis, as the president of the Confederacy, was denied the right to ever hold an office again. At the time, there would have been broad support among a subset of states to elect Davis to President were he allowed to do so. So, yes, there is a similar example were many people deprived of voting for their popular choice for President.

I'm watching the actual proceedings, It's pretty interesting so far. I keep getting distracted and looking things up for more context, so I've only seen one side's arguments so far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz4ZqwrsipA

There are largely two questions being explored

1. Is the President included or excluded from 14.3?

2. Does the state have the jurisdiction and/or right to determine if Trump is disqualified for certain actions while in office?

---

I think the answer to Q1 is yes, the President is most certainly covered in the language that bars oath breakers from holding office again. SCOTUS, as part of the judicial branch, is similar in that it is not called out explicitly, and umbrella'd under the term "office" like the executive branch. Those positions explicitly called out are not typically referred to as holding offices (senators/reps, electors of Pres/VP)

Q2, I don't know

---

After reading the Judges' opinions it seems (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probatio...)

1. There is consensus among both sides that 14.3 does in fact include the President (good, thank you)

2. Question 2 can boil down to due process. Dissenters point out, Trump has not been convicted of insurrection yet, and due process ought to apply when using insurrection to disqualify given the complexity of the question and the gravity of the issue. The majority opinion confirms the lower courts admission of the evidence and their decision that Trump did engage in insurrection.

I find it surprising that the lower court found that Trump engaged in insurrection but denied the ban on the premise that 14.3 doesn't cover the president.

I believe the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power of enforcement, not the Colorado Supreme Court. I don’t think the framers intended for people to pick and choose parts of the Constitution to go after people they don’t like.

not exactly, the court found that

1. The constitution grants broad authority to states on how to run their elections. This include voter qualifications, how the process is performed, and if candidates qualify. This is the same right granted to states that allowed for the rapid change to mass mail-in ballots during the pandemic and requiring ids for voting. Both parties rely on this state level authority for arguing for and against eligible voter agendas.

2. When you look at the language in the 14th, you find very similar language in several other amendments. They found that by and large, 14.3 is self-executing despite 14.5. To rule the opposite would have undone a ton of precedent and created chaos in the larger legal system. That being said, Congress can vote, with a 2/3 majority, to over turn a disqualification. They cannot however adjugate how a state determines qualifications, minus a few federal rules like age and being a citizen.

On the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection, the lower court found there was ample evidence in Trump's public statements (tweets & speeches) to say he engaged in insurrection. The CO SC confirmed this finding. Team Trump argued there was no due process, thus it is unfair to reach this conclusion, they do not dispute the facts, just the inference. The petitioning side argued that this is a judicial review of an elected official in doing their job, thus a jury trial and all that is not required.

I think one way to make an analogy here is to consider OJ Simpson, who was found not-guilty in a criminal case (trump's criminal case is ongoing) while he was found civilly liable and lost all his money (trump is disqualified)

Wait until you find out how party committees and the electoral college work.

And that nine unelected judges with lifetime positions can just decide what parts of the Constitution are valid, and what aren't, whenever they like.

No I'm aware, those are obviously antidemocratic as well. This is just further evidence that America is not a democracy, is what I'm basically saying.

SCOTUS is appointed by the President and approved by Congress, both elected by the people. It's how the democracy was designed

Makes sense, as it’s a constitutional republic.

Bit of a silly counter argument. This is like saying free speech is strictly define by what the US law says, rather than it first and foremost being a widely held cultural value that became enshrined in US law as a reflection of that culture.

Expecting the US to be democratic is a value people hold and it's legitimate to expect it from their government. Even if they don't understand the functions of lower political bodies. [Note: to be clear I'm not making a point re: this ruling, just wanted to point that out]

> whenever they like

A case needs to be brought and make its way through the lower courts first

Ok, I overreached on that one. But not by much.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War, where the very people who committed treason against the Union ran for office. Hence the need to clarify that those people are ineligible.

Same thing happened in Germany after WWII, where Nazis tried to run for office and the law was changed to forbid them from holding political office.

Virtually all democracies have provision for disqualifying people who are anti-democratic.

These type of protections existed before WWII. The Nazis were forbidden for a time, but that was reverted because nobody cared.

Calling Jan 6th an insurrection is a joke.

I Don't Like Trump - didn't vote for him. AND even though I am politically conservative for the most part, I don't care if Trump is on the ballot or not. He is an agent of Chaos.

But if you are paying attention at all, you realize that Jan 6th was nothing more than a idiotic attempt at a protest. Insurrection? gimme a break smh ...what a laughable characterization. The liberal power brokers know it's a lie, they just sit in their high towers and laugh at the sheeple that buy what they sell.

The political lawfare being waged against Trump is eventually going to get turned back around and used against liberals. When that happens, libs will throw tantrums and scream like babies, yet i will feel no sorrow for their plight. Only sadness and shame that my country has fallen so far.

And if you're wondering which way i lean? So far, RFK Jr is the only viable option I'll consider and it's unlikely we'll see anything better this time around.

Just because it was a poorly executed insurrection doesn’t make it any less of one.

This was not a protest. It was an act of violence, complete with a death threat, and its goal was to forcibly prevent the democratic transfer of power.

Exactly -- people stormed a government facility with the express aim of killing a particular official (Pence) who wasn't compliant with their demands. The fact that it was only attempted and didn't succeed doesn't make it meaningless.

Reminds me of that classic Simpsons quote:

"Attempted murder. Now honestly what is that? Can you win a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?”

Drinking the cool-aid.

add 2 more sheep to the herd

Not only has Mr. Trump not been convicted of insurrection either by a jury of his peers or from the bench by a judge; he hasn’t even been charged with it!

Wikipedia:

> On December 19, 2022, the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack recommended criminal charges against Trump for obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and inciting or assisting an insurrection.

The guy you're replying to is that type: Deeply lacking a sense of self empowerment and so desperate to derive it from the politicians who have him bamboozled that he's willing to deny objective reality to maintain them as his savior. This goes for both sides - you cannot talk logic or truth to these people. They were never interested in either.

puhleeez. The house has devolved into pure partisan politics regardless of which side of the aisle you are on.

> Insurrection? gimme a break smh ...what a laughable characterization.

Did you read either the Colorado district court or supreme court's analysis of what defines an insurrection, and whether the events on January 6th qualify? Which part do you disagree with?

> The political lawfare being waged against Trump is eventually going to get turned back around and used against liberals.

Would you rather the technique Trump used on January 6 be turned against Conservatives? Suppose Trump were to the electoral vote in 2024, and Biden sent a semi-organized mob to storm congress to threaten violence against any congressman voting to certify his election, would that be OK with you?

I agree that "lawfare" of this kind poses risks; look at the current situation in Guatemala. But there are risks on both sides.

Attempting to argue the finer points of the flawed conclusions of the 4 liberal judges on this case is a bit much for this venue.

The easier answer is to point out that the case barely got a majority decision with 3 Liberal Colorado Supreme Court judges in dissent. Barely a majority decision! The inability to get unanimous results from 7 liberal judges in a state controlled by liberals speaks volumes about the legal foundation (or the lack thereof) in this case. I'll let those 3 liberal judges make the case for me.

As for the "Technique" that Trump used??? What Technique? Bloviating like a crybaby because he lost? Please. It is not obvious that Trump employed any technique or strategy at all just as it is not obvious that he attempted to invoke an insurrection and overthrow the government.

If a Democrat president behaved the way that Trump did, i would be equally offended by that behavior but i wouldn't fear that a similar sized and unarmed group of protestors was going to somehow take over the US Government by storming the Capital in the same manner as occurred on Jan 6th.

> The easier answer is to point out that the case barely got a majority decision with 3 Liberal Colorado Supreme Court judges in dissent. Barely a majority decision!

This is why you should actually read the case, or at least read informed summaries. There are loads of questions which need to be "yes" in order for Trump to be taken off the ballot:

1. Was Jan 6 an insurrection?

2. Did Trump "engage" in it?

3. If he did engage in it, is the President even covered at all by the 14th amendment? That is, does he count as an "officer of the United States"?

4. If he is an "officer of the United States", is the oath Trump swore when he became President the kind of oath required by the 14th amendment?

5. Is the 14th amendment "self-executing" -- meaning, does it just happen, or is it like prohibition, where the amendment merely authorizes Congress to pass a law; but congress themselves have to actually pass it?

6. If he is ineligible, is striking him from the primary ballot the right thing to do, or should that be handled some other way?

7. If striking him from the primary ballot is the right thing to do, how is that supposed to be done? Should the Secretary of State take initiative to look into things? Do the voters of the state have standing to sue, as they have in this case?

8. If this is (a) right way to get him off the primary ballot, does the current "expedited" system, which was designed for simple things like "is this person 35 years or older", sufficient to give Trump "due process"? Should he have to actually be convicted of the crime of insurrection first, for instance? Or should the trial in this case be longer than the 7 days (5 days + 48 hours) mandated by the law?

All of the judges -- both the lower court and all the supreme court judges -- agree that the answer to #1 and #2 are "yes".

Re #3, the lower court judge basically said, "Seems like he should be, but in this case you want to err on the side of caution; so I'm saying no."

The dissenters, as I said, agreed that #1 and #2 are "yes"; they disagree on the technicalities around #8. One for instance, said that the only issue is that the Colorado law doesn't explicitly say that the "expedited process" for challenging someone's qualifications includes the 14th amendment. Another says that without a criminal conviction, due process hasn't been followed.

> As for the "Technique" that Trump used??? What Technique? Bloviating like a crybaby because he lost?

He incited a mob to break into the capitol and threaten violence on the members of the government attempting to fulfill duties prescribed by the Constitution, to force them to subvert the Constitutionally-valid election results. I'm told this exact technique has been successfully used frequently in history to subvert democratic institutions; which is exactly why he tried it. I don't think the outcome we got is nearly so foregone as you seem to think.

> i wouldn't fear that a similar sized and unarmed group of protestors was going to somehow take over the US Government by storming the Capital in the same manner as occurred on Jan 6th.

They certainly would if they'd been groomed with stories about widespread election fraud the way the 2020 protesters had.

If you don't want Trump as a dictator starting in 2024, I seriously suggest you do some more reading; starting with the rulings here, in particular the description of what Trump did, and why it counts as insurrection.

You make the legal argument for me with your quote... "(sic) One (Judge) for instance, said that the issue is that the Colorado law doesn't explicitly say that the "expedited process" for challenging someone's qualifications includes the 14th amendment. Another (Judge) says that without a criminal conviction, due process hasn't been followed."

Trump is not my guy and never was. So don't conflate my handing out a dose of legal reality with support for him.

Furthermore, don't confuse my refusal to go into the finer points of the legal argument on this thread with being uninformed on the topic.

Lastly, your hatred of the Big Orange Head has clouded your ability to think logically.

Jan 6th doesn't qualify as an insurrection. It was nothing more than a stupid attempt at protest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com