Mediaboss Marketing

Colorados top court ruled on Tuesday that former President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from holding office again because he engaged in insurrection with his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol, an explosive ruling that is likely to put the basic contours of the 2024 election in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Colorado Supreme Court was the first in the nation to find that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment which disqualifies people who engage in insurrection against the Constitution after taking an oath to support it applies to Mr. Trump, an argument that his opponents have been making around the country.

The ruling directs the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Mr. Trumps name from the states Republican primary ballot. It does not address the general election.

We do not reach these conclusions lightly, a four-justice majority wrote, with three justices dissenting. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.

Mr. Trumps campaign said immediately that it would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Colorado justices anticipated that likelihood by putting their ruling on hold at least until Jan. 4; if Mr. Trump appeals before then, the hold will continue until the Supreme Court rules. And while Tuesdays ruling applies only to one state, it could all but force the nations highest court to decide the question for all 50.

Its hard for me to see how they dont take this one, because this certainly seems to be one of those questions that requires some national resolution, said Anthony Michael Kreis, an assistant professor of law at Georgia State University who has closely followed the Colorado case and related lawsuits around the country.

If the justices take up the case, it will join a pile of other Trump-related matters they have agreed or are likely to decide, including whether he is immune from criminal prosecution for actions he took in office and the scope of an obstruction charge that is central to his federal Jan. 6 case.

The U.S. Supreme Court has a 6-to-3 conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Mr. Trump himself, and it is already under extraordinary political pressure and scrutiny both for its rulings and its justices ethics.

Once again, the Supreme Court is being thrust into the center of a U.S. presidential election, said Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, who compared the stakes to Bush v. Gore. But, unlike in 2000, the general political instability in the United States makes the situation now much more precarious.

In the Colorado courts lengthy ruling on Tuesday, the justices there reversed a Denver district judges finding last month that Section 3 did not apply to the presidency. They affirmed the district judges other key conclusions: that Mr. Trumps actions before and on Jan. 6, 2021, constituted engaging in insurrection, and that courts had the authority to enforce Section 3 against a person whom Congress had not specifically designated.

A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the justices wrote. Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado secretary of state to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.

Mr. Trumps campaign denounced the ruling, which is likely to inflame a Republican base that he has primed to see the array of civil and criminal cases against him as a witch hunt. Politically, his standing among Republican primary voters has only risen in the wake of the dozens of criminal charges against him.

Unsurprisingly, the all-Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing groups scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden by removing President Trumps name from the ballot and eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice, a campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, said. We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits.

Similar lawsuits in Minnesota and New Hampshire were dismissed on procedural grounds. A judge in Michigan ruled last month that the issue was political and not for him to decide, and an appeals court affirmed the decision not to disqualify Mr. Trump there. The plaintiffs have appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Tuesdays ruling is not only historic and justified, but is necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country, Noah Bookbinder, the president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in a statement. His organization represented the voters seeking to disqualify Mr. Trump in Colorado.

Mr. Trump himself, who has routinely railed against unfavorable rulings, did not explicitly mention the Colorado Supreme Court decision in a speech Tuesday evening in Waterloo, Iowa but his campaign was already fund-raising off it. An email to his supporters accused Democrats of trying to nullify Trump votes and asked for contributions to help defend his place on ballots.

Republican elected officials quickly circled the wagons around Mr. Trump, and a super PAC supporting him blasted out some of their comments to supporters.

In one more illustration of the unusual nature of the 2024 Republican primary race in which even the candidates seeking to defeat Mr. Trump for the partys nomination have largely shied away from condemning him his main rivals, Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, both suggested that the ruling was an abuse of judicial power.

The case hinged on several questions: Was it an insurrection when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, trying to stop the certification of the 2020 election? If so, did Mr. Trump engage in that insurrection through his messages to his supporters beforehand, his speech that morning and his Twitter posts during the attack? Do courts have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without congressional action? And does Section 3 apply to the presidency?

Judge Sarah B. Wallace, who made the district court ruling in Colorado, had said yes to all but the last question.

Because Section 3 enumerates several offices but not the presidency, and because the presidential oath is worded differently from the oaths of the enumerated offices, Judge Wallace concluded that the broad phrase officers of the United States was not intended to include the presidency. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed.

We do not place the same weight the district court did on the fact that the presidency is not specifically mentioned in Section 3, the majority wrote. It seems most likely that the presidency is not specifically included because it is so evidently an office.

The three justices who dissented did so on procedural grounds, not on the merits of whether Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection or whether Section 3 applies to the presidency. In three separate dissenting opinions, each based on different legal arguments, they all concluded that the court had overstepped its authority.

Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past dare I say, engaged in insurrection there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office, Justice Carlos Samour Jr. wrote in his dissent.

He added, I am disturbed about the potential chaos wrought by an imprudent, unconstitutional and standardless system in which each state gets to adjudicate Section 3 disqualification cases on an ad hoc basis.

Several legal experts emphasized in interviews with The New York Times that the case involved novel legal and constitutional questions ones for which there is no clear precedent. This is a provision of the Constitution that we just didnt expect to start using again, Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said of Section 3, which was written after the Civil War to prevent members of the Confederacy from holding office.

Professor Hasen, of U.C.L.A., called the ruling very carefully crafted and considered.

That said, many of the issues that the Colorado Supreme Court resolved could well be decided differently by the U.S. Supreme Court if it ends up reviewing the case on the merits, he said. Many of these are issues of first impression that courts have never had to address before.

Michael Gold and Adam Liptak contributed reporting.

Original post:
Trump Is Disqualified From 2024 Ballot, Colorado Court Says in Explosive Ruling - The New York Times

The Supreme Courts decision on Friday not to fast-track consideration of former President Donald J. Trumps claim that he is immune to prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election was unquestionably a victory for Mr. Trump and his lawyers.

The choice by the justices not to take up the issue now rendered without explanation gave a boost to the former presidents legal strategy of delaying the proceedings as much as possible in the hopes of running out the clock before Election Day.

It is not clear, however, that the decision holds any clues to what the Supreme Court might think of the substance of his immunity claim. And the degree to which it pushes off Mr. Trumps trial will only be determined in coming weeks as the clash over whether he can be prosecuted plays out in the federal appeals court in Washington and then perhaps makes its way right back to the justices.

How the Supreme Court handles the case at that point could still have profound implications, both for whether the federal election interference indictment will stand and for whether Mr. Trump might succeed in pushing a trial past the election. At that point, if he wins the presidency, he could order the charges to be dropped.

Here is a look at whats ahead.

Mr. Trump is attempting to get the entire indictment against him tossed out with an argument that has never before been tested by the courts largely because no one else has ever made it this way. He is claiming that he is absolutely immune to criminal prosecution on the charges of election interference because they stem from acts he took while he was in the White House.

Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is handling the underlying case in Federal District Court in Washington, rejected that claim earlier this month in a decision that found there was nothing in the Constitution or American history supporting the idea that the holder of the nations highest position, once out of office, should not be subject to the federal criminal law like everybody else.

Mr. Trump appealed the decision to the first court above Judge Chutkans: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

But fearing that a protracted appeal could delay the case from going to trial as scheduled in March, Jack Smith, the special counsel who filed the indictment, made an unusual request to the Supreme Court: He asked the justices to step in front of the appeals court and consider the case first to speed up the process and preserve the current trial date.

On Friday, in a one-sentence order, the Supreme Court turned down Mr. Smiths request.

The appeals court in Washington will hear the immunity matter. In fact, the court will do so on a schedule that is extremely accelerated by judicial standards.

A three-judge panel of the court made up of one judge named by President George H.W. Bush and two appointed by President Biden has ordered all of the briefs in the case to be turned in by Jan. 2. It has set a hearing for oral arguments on Jan. 9.

In a sign of how quickly the panel is moving, the judges told Mr. Trumps lawyers to turn in their first round of court papers on Saturday, two days before Christmas. Mr. Smiths team has been ordered to submit its own papers on the following Saturday, the day before New Years Eve.

If the appeals court decides in Mr. Trumps favor, Mr. Smiths office would almost certainly challenge the loss in front of the Supreme Court, assuming the justices agreed to hear it.

But the more likely scenario is that the three appellate judges rule against Mr. Trump, rejecting his claims of immunity.

At that point, he could seek to have the entire circuit court hear the appeal a move that, if nothing else, would eat up more time. If the full court declined to take the case or ruled against him, he would likely ask the Supreme Court to step in for the second time.

In theory, the Supreme Court could decline to take up the immunity matter if Mr. Trump loses and simply let the appeals court ruling stand. That option could be appealing to the justices if they want to avoid stepping directly into a highly charged political issue just one of several they are likely to confront in coming months that could have a bearing on Mr. Trumps chances of reclaiming the White House.

Were that to happen, the case would go back to Judge Chutkan and she would set a new date for trial. Her handling of the case so far suggests that she would move the proceedings along at a rapid clip.

If, however, the Supreme Court were to take the case, the justices would have to make another critical decision: how fast to hear it. It is possible they could consider the case quickly and return a ruling on the immunity issue by or even well before the end of their current term in June.

But Mr. Smith has expressed concern in filings to the court that the justices might not be able to complete their work before the end of this term. If they do not, the case would drag into the next term, which does not get underway until October, too late to resolve before Election Day.

If the appeals court returns a quick decision against Mr. Trump and the Supreme Court lets that decision stand, the trial might be delayed, but perhaps only by a matter of weeks. Under this scenario, it is conceivable that the case could go in front of a jury by April or May, well before the heart of the campaign season.

If the Supreme Court takes the case and hears it on a fast-tracked schedule, the trial could be delayed for somewhat longer perhaps by a matter of months. That would mean a trial could be held over the summer, a fraught possibility given that the Republican nominating convention is in July and that Mr. Trump, assuming he is the partys nominee, could be kept from doing much traditional campaigning for the duration of the trial.

But if the Supreme Court takes the case and follows a leisurely pace in considering it, there might not be a trial at all before the general election in November. In that case, voters would not have the chance to hear the evidence in the case against Mr. Trump before making their choice and a President Trump could choose to make sure they do not get the chance after the election either.

View post:
When Will Trump Stand Trial? Supreme Court Order May Help Him Delay. - The New York Times

The Supreme Court declined on Friday to decide for now whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

The decision to defer consideration of a central issue in the case was a major practical victory for Mr. Trump, whose lawyers have consistently sought to delay criminal cases against him around the country.

It is unclear what the courts order will mean for the timing of the trial, which is scheduled to start on March 4, though it makes postponement more likely. The case will now move forward in an appeals court, which has put it on a fast track, and most likely return to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks or months.

In denying review, the justices gave no reasons, which is typical, and there were no noted dissents.

Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting Mr. Trump, had asked the justices to move with extraordinary speed, bypassing the appeals court.

Any significant delays could plunge the trial into the heart of the 2024 campaign season or push it past the election, when Mr. Trump could order the charges be dropped if he wins the presidency.

A speedy decision by the justices was of the essence, Mr. Smith said in his petition seeking immediate Supreme Court review, because Mr. Trumps appeal of a trial judges ruling rejecting his claim of immunity suspended the criminal trial.

Mr. Smith wrote that the case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.

The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request, Mr. Smith added. This is an extraordinary case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has put the case on a brisk schedule, ordering expedited briefing and scheduling arguments for Jan. 9.

The case will be heard by a three-member panel made up of Judge Karen L. Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, and Judges Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs, who were both appointed by President Biden.

The panel will probably issue a prompt decision. If Mr. Trump loses, he could ask the full appeals court to rehear the case. In the end, the losing side will in all likelihood return to the Supreme Court.

The trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, rejected Mr. Trumps sweeping claims that he had absolute immunity from the election interference indictment because it was based on actions he took while in office. She has since suspended proceedings in the case while an appeal moves forward.

Mr. Smith urged the justices to move fast: The public importance of the issues, the imminence of the scheduled trial date and the need for a prompt and final resolution of respondents immunity claims counsel in favor of this courts expedited review at this time.

Mr. Trumps lawyers took the opposite view, asking the justices to follow the usual procedure by letting the appeals court consider the matter first.

Importance does not automatically necessitate speed, Mr. Trumps brief said. If anything, the opposite is usually true. Novel, complex, sensitive and historic issues such as the existence of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts call for more careful deliberation, not less.

Mr. Smith called that approach misguided.

The public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this court, he wrote. The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves for the first time in our nations history criminal charges against a former president based on his actions while in office.

And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election, Mr. Smith added.

Mr. Trumps lawyers countered that the case, and Mr. Smiths desire to resolve it promptly, was driven by political considerations.

He confuses the public interest with the manifest partisan interest in ensuring that President Trump will be subjected to a monthslong criminal trial at the height of a presidential campaign where he is the leading candidate and the only serious opponent of the current administration, the brief said.

The two sides rely on precedents that point in opposite directions, both involving President Richard M. Nixon.

In 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the court ruled that Nixon, then still in office, had to comply with a trial subpoena seeking tapes of his conversations in the Oval Office, rejecting his claims of executive privilege.

Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote.

Eight years later, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the court voted 5 to 4 in favor of Nixon in a civil case brought by an Air Force analyst who said he was fired in 1970 in retaliation for his criticism of cost overruns. By the time the court acted, Nixon had been out of office for several years.

In view of the special nature of the presidents constitutional office and functions, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote for the majority, we think it appropriate to recognize absolute presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.

The Supreme Court will soon confront a different question arising from the aftermath of the 2020 election. On Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Trump is not eligible to be on the primary ballot in that state under a provision of the Constitution that bars officials who have engaged in insurrection from holding office. Mr. Trump has said he will appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court.

Alan Feuer contributed reporting.

Read the original here:
Supreme Court Won't Hear Case on Trump's Immunity Defense for Now - The New York Times

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump cannot appear on the states Republican presidential primary ballot next year because he is disqualified for engaging in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol.

The stunning 4-3 decision is almost certain to be immediately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and is likely to have national ripple effects. Similar lawsuits seeking to block Trump from appearing on presidential primary ballots have been filed in other parts of the country, but no others have been successful.

The Colorado Supreme Court stayed its ruling until Jan. 4 to give the U.S. Supreme Court time to weigh in.

Colorados presidential primary ballot must be set by Jan. 5. Ballots start being mailed to military and overseas voters on Jan. 20. Election Day is March 5.

We do not reach these conclusions lightly, Justices Monica Mrquez, William Hood, Richard Gabriel and Melissa Hart wrote in the courts 132-page majority opinion. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.

Chief Justice Brian Boatright and Justices Maria Berkenkotter and Carlos Samour Jr. dissented.

All seven justices on the Colorado Supreme Court were appointed by Democratic governors.

In a written statement, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung called the courts ruling completely flawed and vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits, Cheung said.

Electorally speaking, Colorado is unimportant in the 2024 presidential race. Trump lost to President Joe Biden in Colorado by 13 percentage points in 2020 and polls show he remains deeply unpopular in the state.

But the Colorado Supreme Courts ruling means that Trumps bid next year may hinge on Colorado. If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Colorado Supreme Court decision, Trump could be disqualified from appearing on the Republican presidential primary ballot in other states.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal political nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., 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 shouldnt be allowed on the states presidential primary ballot because of his role in the Jan. 6 attack.

The nonprofit, which doesnt reveal its donors, claimed that Trump violated the so-called insurrection clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars officers of the United States who took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof from holding federal or state office again.

The lawsuit was first heard in Denver District Court, where Judge Sarah Wallace ruled Nov. 17 that while Trump incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, he can still appear on Colorados 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot because he is not an officer of the United States.

Part of the courts decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section 3, she wrote.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington appealed the ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court, arguing that a president is an officer of the United States. Trumps 2024 campaign also appealed, seeking to invalidate Wallaces finding that Trump incited an insurrection on the argument state courts dont have the power to rule on 14th Amendment challenges.

The Colorado Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on Dec. 6. The courts justices seemed to struggle with whether the 14th Amendment applies to former presidents.

Gabriel said it seemed absurd that drafters of the 14th Amendment wouldnt have meant it to apply to presidents. Justice Monica Mrquez said in her readings of the case law, she saw no rational reason for that type of an exclusion.

But Samour said it seemed odd that the presidents and vice presidents werent specifically called out in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the so-called insurrection clause.

If it was so important that the president be included, why not spell it out? he asked before packed chambers in downtown Denver, echoing the legal ambiguity on which the lower courts ruling hinged.

But the majority of the Colorado Supreme Court found Tuesday that Wallace was wrong and that the 14th Amendment does apply to former presidents.

President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land, the courts majority opinion said. Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.

The majority also found that state courts do have jurisdiction in the case.

Were we to adopt President Trumps view, Colorado could not exclude from the ballot even candidates who plainly do not satisfy the age, residency and citizenship requirements of the Presidential Qualifications Clause, the majority wrote in its opinion. It would mean that the state would be powerless to exclude a 28-year-old, a nonresident of the United States, or even a foreign national from the presidential primary ballot in Colorado.

Finally, the majority ruled that Trump engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6.

The record amply established that the events of Jan. 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country, the courts majority wrote. Under any viable definition, this constituted an insurrection.

The majority also wrote that Trump did not merely incite the insurrection.

Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President (Mike) Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes, the majority wrote. These actions constituted overt, voluntary and direct participation in the insurrection.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruling marks the first time that the insurrection clause has been used to block a presidential candidate from appearing on the ballot.

We of course know that the (U.S.) Supreme Court is the likely destination for this decision and were ready to present our arguments, Eric Olson, an attorney for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told CNN on Tuesday night.

The plaintiffs in the Colorado case include Krista Kafer, a Republican activist and political commentator in Colorado; Norma Anderson, a Republican who was formerly the majority leader in the Colorado Senate; Michelle Priola, the wife of state Sen. Kevin Priola, who switched his party affiliation to Democratic from Republican in 2022; and Chris Castilian, former chief of staff for then-Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican.

Mario Nicolais, a Colorado Sun opinion columnist, is one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs.

In a written statement, Anderson said the Colorado Supreme Courts ruling ensures that Republican presidential primary voters in the state are only casting ballots for eligible candidates.

Long before this lawsuit was filed, I had already read Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and concluded that it applied to Donald Trump, given his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6, she said. I am proud to be a petitioner, and gratified that the Colorado Supreme Court arrived at the same conclusion we all did.

Griswolds office took a neutral legal stance on the case. But after Wallaces ruling last month, the Democrat, in TV appearances, expressed shock at the outcome.

The idea that any official who would engage in insurrection would be barred from taking office except the presidency is incredibly surprising, she said on MSNBC last month. That basically means that the presidency is a get-out-of-jail free card for insurrection.

Griswold said in a written statement Tuesday that her office will follow court guidance in a nod to how the Colorado Supreme Courts decision is likely to be appealed.

In an 11-page dissent, Boatright, the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, wrote that Colorados election code was not enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection. Instead, the state code lays out qualifications based on objective, discernible facts, such as a candidates age, time previously served as president and place of birth.

Those all pale in comparison with the complexity of an action to disqualify a candidate for engaging in insurrection, Boatright wrote .

Boatright said the Colorado law requires that any challenges to a candidates eligibility be heard at a breakneck pace, giving the defendant little time to prepare a defense and making the statute ill-suited for a claim of such gravity. This speed comes with consequences, namely, the absence of procedures that courts, litigants, and the public would expect for complex constitutional litigation, he wrote.

Samour, building off of Boatrights dissent, wrote in his 43-page dissent that he worries about due process given the speed of the case.

I recognize the need to defend and protect our democracy against those who seek to undermine the peaceful transfer of power, Samour wrote. And I embrace the judiciarys solemn role in upholding and applying the law. But that solemn role necessarily includes ensuring our courts afford everyone who comes before them (in criminal and civil proceedings alike) due process of law.

Berkenkotter, the newest member of the Colorado Supreme Court, wrote in a separate 25-page dissent that Colorados election code does not give authority to state courts to litigate presidential candidates eligibility beyond a candidate declaring they are a bonafide candidate, submitting a notarized statement of intent and paying $500 or submitting a write-in petition.

She said if the legislature wants state courts to have the power to adjudicate 14th Amendment challenges, it should do so by amending the election code. I just think it needs to say so, she wrote.

Other Republican presidential candidates seeking a spot on Colorados primary ballot include Florida Gov.Ron DeSantis, former U.N. Ambassador and South Carolina Gov.Nikki Haley, former New Jersey Gov.Chris Christie, former Arkansas Gov.Asa Hutchinsonand entrepreneurVivek Ramaswamy.

Dave Williams, a Trump ally and chair of the Colorado GOP, said the party would move to withdraw from the states presidential primary if Trump isnt allowed to appear on the ballot. He said the GOP would select delegates to the Republican National Convention through the states caucus process instead.

If the state refuses to let Republicans withdraw from the primary, we will ignore the primary results, Williams said.

Colorado Sun staff writer Brian Eason contributed to this report. Colorado Sun editors Lance Benzel and Dana Coffield also contributed to this report.

Colorado Supreme Court: See Anderson v. Griswold, Dec. 19, 2023. Source link.

Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.

See the original post here:
Donald Trump blocked from appearing on presidential primary ballot by Colorado Supreme Court - The Colorado Sun

The political network founded by the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch has endorsed Nikki Haley in the Republican presidential nominating contest, giving her organizational muscle and financial heft as she battles Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida to be the top rival to former President Donald J. Trump.

The group announced its plans in a memo on Tuesday.

The commitment by the network, Americans for Prosperity Action, bolsters Ms. Haley as the campaign enters the final seven weeks before the Iowa caucuses. Since the first Republican primary debate, Ms. Haley has steadily climbed in polls, even as Mr. DeSantis has slipped. Mr. Trump remains the dominant front-runner in the race.

In sharp contrast to recent elections that were dominated by the negative baggage of Donald Trump and in which good candidates lost races that should have been won, Nikki Haley, at the top of the ticket, would boost candidates up and down the ballot, reads the memo from Emily Seidel, a senior adviser to Americans for Prosperity Action, who adds that Ms. Haley would win the key independent and moderate voters that Trump has no chance to win.

The memo goes on to say that the country is being ripped apart by extremes on both sides, adding: The moment we face requires a tested leader with the governing judgment and policy experience to pull our nation back from the brink. Nikki Haley is that leader.

The group laid out polling describing the shift in the race toward Ms. Haley in a separate memo. On a separate call with reporters, the senior adviser who presented the polling, Michael Palmer, said that Mr. DeSantiss support over the course of the year had dropped precipitously.

Ms. Haley, who has described Mr. Trumps time as past, has gained support from donors and elite opinion-makers, many of whom describe her as the best alternative to Mr. Trump.

But Ms. Haleys campaign does not have the organizational strength that Mr. DeSantis does, thanks to work the super PAC affiliated with his campaign has been doing for much of the year.

The endorsement from the super PAC established by the Koch brothers could help change that. It will give her access to a direct-mail operation, field workers to knock on doors and people making phone calls to prospective voters in Iowa and beyond. The group has money to spend on television advertisements, as well.

Im honored to have the support of Americans for Prosperity Action, including its millions of grass-roots members all across the country, Ms. Haley said in a statement. A.F.P. Actions members know that there is too much at stake in this election to sit on the sidelines.

The Koch networks backing helps fuel Ms. Haleys momentum heading into the final weeks before voting begins. And its a blow to Mr. DeSantis as he tries to maintain to donors that he is the only person who can beat Mr. Trump if the contest eventually whittles down to the former president and one other contestant.

Americans for Prosperity Action has been among the countrys largest spenders on anti-Trump material this year, buying online ads and sending mailers to voters in several states, including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. All told, the group has spent more than $9 million in independent expenditures opposing Mr. Trump.

One mailer in Iowa, paid for by the group, shows images of Mr. Trump and President Biden and reads, You can stop Biden by letting go of Trump.

But so far, none of that spending has benefited any of Mr. Trumps rivals, who have been busy battling one another.

The Koch network is well financed, raising more than $70 million for political races as of this summer. On a press call about the endorsement, officials declined to say how much money they would budget toward helping Ms. Haley.

The group has been committed to opposing Mr. Trumps return as leader of the Republican Party. In a memo in February, Ms. Seidel, who also serves as the president of Americans for Prosperity, the political networks parent group, wrote: We need to turn the page on the past. So the best thing for the country would be to have a president in 2025 who represents a new chapter.

Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trumps campaign, said in a statement, Americans for Prosperity the political arm of the China First, America Last movement has chosen to endorse a pro-China, open borders, and globalist candidate in Nikki Birdbrain Haley, adding that no amount of shady money would stop Mr. Trump from winning the Republican nomination and the election.

Over the past few years, the Koch network has spent tens of millions of dollars opposing the foreign policy views that Ms. Haley has espoused. She has been among the most hawkish in the Republican presidential field on aid to Ukraine in its fight against the Russian invasion, while the Koch-backed group Concerned Veterans for America has opposed American involvement in that conflict.

Ms. Haley has also criticized the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, a policy change that the Koch network campaigned aggressively to bring about. And she has advocated military strikes in Iran, while the Koch foreign policy operation has opposed military action against the country.

Mr. DeSantiss campaign has had upheaval in recent days, including the resignation of the chief executive of his super PAC. Mr. DeSantis, who has polled solidly in second place behind Mr. Trump since he entered the race this year, has seen his standing drop in surveys. He has struggled to connect with voters, and efforts to lift him including a recent endorsement by Iowas governor, Kim Reynolds have yielded little return in polling.

His team tried to throw cold water on the endorsement before it was even announced.

Every dollar spent on Nikki Haleys candidacy should be reported as an in-kind to the Trump campaign, Andrew Romeo, a DeSantis campaign spokesman, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, 30 minutes before the press call.

No one has a stronger record of beating the establishment than Ron DeSantis, and this time will be no different, he wrote.

Original post:
Koch Network Endorses Nikki Haley in Bid to Push G.O.P. Past Trump - The New York Times