Judges strike Donald Trump off the ballot in Colorado. What does the ruling mean for his candidacy?

Presidential primaries - Judges strike Donald Trump off the ballot in Colorado. What does the ruling mean for his candidacy?

Donald Trump has suffered a major setback so close to Christmas. The Supreme Court of the US state of Colorado considers it proven that the former president took part in a "riot or insurrection" against the Constitution on January 6, 2021. In doing so, Trump violated the 14th Amendment of the same constitution - which in turn disqualifies him from running for the White House again.

Trump and his team are certainly fuming. The decision was "profoundly undemocratic", said the campaign team's spokesperson and announced that he would appeal to the Supreme Court in Washington.

In any case, the ruling, the circumstances and perhaps also the consequences are historic. But what are they actually? Is Trump really facing the political end? An overview.

The 14th Amendment - vague words with explosive force

The verdict in the federal capital Denver was only narrowly against Trump by four votes to three. They were moving into uncharted legal territory. The judges do not want their decision to have been an easy one - they are well aware of its implications. The "New York Times" writes of a "political and legal earthquake", while the "Washington Post" calls it a "significant date in American political history".

The basis for the decision is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, or more precisely its third section. Put simply, it states that no person may run for official office who, as a public servant who has already been sworn in, has "taken part in an insurrection or sedition against them [the United States, editor's note], or aided or abetted their enemies". However, by wanting to overturn the election result on January 6, 2021 and calling on his supporters to march on the US Capitol, Trump had done just that.

At issue was not only the question of whether Trump incited or participated in a riot, but also whether the 14th Amendment even applies to a US president (read more here). The Colorado Supreme Court has now said yes in both cases: Yes.

In doing so, however, it partially reversed a previous ruling in its own state. A lower court judge also came to the conclusion that Trump had incited a riot - he had acted "with the specific intent to incite political violence". However, the vaguely worded constitutional amendment did not explicitly mention the US president. As former Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in the "Wall Street Journal" in September, the text of the law does refer to an "officer of the United States" - but only means "appointed officers, not elected officers". Opponents see this kind of interpretation as an attempt to deliberately misinterpret the logic of the law.

One thing is certain: Opinions differ on these vague words, which are more than 150 years old. The pros and cons will be hotly debated in the coming weeks and months. In any case, nothing has been decided yet.

Politically, little is likely to change for Trump at first

But even if Trump were not actually elected in Colorado in the end, the impact would probably be minimal - at least politically. The state has reliably gone to the Democrats in the past four presidential elections. Nobody in the Trump team is likely to have expected a victory here in 2024.

The internal party primaries are also comparatively insignificant. They will take place on March 5, known as Super Tuesday, when conservatives will decide on a candidate in a dozen states at the same time. In view of his poll ratings, Trump probably doesn't need Colorado at all.

Quite apart from that, the Colorado judges have suspended their ruling until January 4 to give Trump the opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court in Washington. Until then, Trump is still on the ballot and will remain so until the Supreme Court has had its final say. It is therefore quite possible that the elections will go ahead as planned for the time being.

Nevertheless, the decision from Denver is not only historic - it could also send a signal. Colorado is not the only state in which Trump opponents have filed lawsuits against the Republican's renewed candidacy - although they have not been successful anywhere so far. That could now change.

Supreme Court has the last word

At least on paper, it doesn't have to go that far. Congress could also lift the ban - but this would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers. That is unlikely, to say the least. It is also possible that the Supreme Court could indirectly leave the verdict to the voters through the presidential elections, the New York Times speculates. A bold hope.

A review by the US Supreme Court seems "inevitable", write US legal experts in the "Election Law Blog". The pressure on the judges is likely to be enormous. Pressure that they are already likely to feel enough, as the Trump cases are piling up in Washington. Only recently, special prosecutor Jack Smith asked the court to rule on Trump's immunity claims in summary proceedings.

A further reason for Trump's optimism: in contrast to the consistently Democratic panel in Colorado (where three judges nevertheless voted in Trump's favor), the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are conservative - three of them were appointed by the Republican himself at the time. Their views are no guarantee for Trump-friendly decisions, as the past has shown. If, contrary to expectations, the Washington judges refuse to review the ruling of their colleagues from Colorado, Trump could indeed be excluded from the elections.

Republicans back Trump

Within the party, the bad news from Denver did not initially shake Trump's supremacy. Unsurprisingly, the Republicans almost unanimously backed the ex-president - even his direct rivals. After all, the case is about fundamentals.

"Donald Trump should not be prevented from becoming president by a court. He should be prevented from becoming President of the United States by the voters of this country," writes presidential candidate Chris Christie, one of his biggest critics, for example.

Donald Trump should not be prevented from being President by any court. He should be prevented from being President of the United States by the voters of this country. pic.twitter.com/77ChhLFkFz

— Chris Christie (@GovChristie) December 20, 2023

According to current polls, Trump is miles ahead of "pursuers" such as Christie, Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis. The verdict is only likely to strengthen Trumpists in their admiration for the 77-year-old, giving new life to the myth of the political witch hunt.

This once again reveals the biggest weakness of the competition to date - taking shots at Trump would suggest an ideological closeness to the hated Democrats. In times of political division, no conservative can or wants to afford that.

Sources:"New York Times";"Election Law Blog";"Vox";"Washington Post"; CNN