Colorado ruling fuels efforts in other blue states to bar Trump from the ballot

This week’s ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court declaring Donald Trump ineligible to be president again is reverberating around the country, prompting challengers in other blue states to try to fast-track similar efforts to remove the former president from their 2024 ballots.

In a 4-3 decision Tuesday, the Colorado court ruled that Trump is disqualified by the Constitution from serving as president again because he stoked an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

While the case appears destined for the U.S. Supreme Court, in the meantime it is being cited by voters and politicians in a variety of states who are seeking to use the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause to kick Trump off the ballot. That clause states that anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after taking an oath of office to support the Constitution is forbidden from holding any public office.

Proponents of the 14th Amendment argument are harnessing the Colorado ruling in two ways. In some states, voters and advocates are hoping it strengthens existing court challenges. In others, Democrats are citing it to bolster efforts to ban Trump from the ballot by amending state election law or through unilateral action by state officials.

In Michigan, a group of voters suing to bar Trump from the state’s ballot quickly brought the Colorado decision to the attention of the Michigan Supreme Court. On Wednesday, they filed a letter to the Michigan court saying that the Colorado court had “resolved several issues” relevant to their case, including that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to the office of the presidency and that the attack at the Capitol on Jan. 6 amounted to an insurrection.

They also pointed out that Colorado state law permitted the challenge to Trump’s qualifications. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month that Michigan state law doesn’t permit challenges to a candidate’s qualifications prior to the presidential primary election; the voters are hoping the Michigan Supreme Court overturns that decision.

In Maine, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows had said she would rule on challenges to Trump’s qualifications by Friday. But in the wake of the Colorado ruling, her office said in an email that her decision would be delayed due in part to the outcome of that case, known as Anderson v. Griswold. “Given the technical difficulties and in light of the Anderson decision, Secretary Bellows expects to issue a decision early next week,” her office wrote.

California Democrats with higher ambitions have embraced unlikely but politically resonant ploys to bar Trump from the ballot there.

Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis — who is running for governor — on Wednesday asked the state’s elections officials to examine removing Trump. And state Sen. Dave Min — who is running for Congress — is planning to introduce a bill letting Californians sue to block ineligible candidates.

“California is obligated to determine if Trump is ineligible for the California ballot for the same reasons described in Anderson,” Kounalakis wrote in a letter to elections officials. “The Colorado decision can be the basis for a similar decision here in our state. The constitution is clear: you must be 40 years old and not be an insurrectionist.”

Kounalakis, however, was wrong: The Constitution’s age requirement to be president is 35, not 40. She later corrected the error.

It’s all but impossible that Min’s bill would pass and take effect before California’s March primary, given the legislature’s calendar, meaning it would not affect the outcome of an election in which President Joe Biden is likely to resoundingly carry California.

Min conceded in an interview that his bill would not affect the primary. But he argued that by letting California’s secretary of state make a determination, which would then be tested by courts, it would help bolster the legal argument that Trump is ineligible.

“This would add another major voice to the chorus of states saying ‘we believe Trump committed insurrection and cannot run for president,’” Min said.

But the state's top elections official and its attorney general have been mum about their plans as a Dec. 28 deadline approaches for California to certify its list of candidates on the primary ballot.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber hasn’t taken a definitive stance in response to requests that she exert her authority to remove Trump. A spokesperson said Weber’s office is reviewing the Colorado opinion to “assess its impact.” If Weber or the courts don’t act by Dec. 28, attempting to remove Trump could create major logistical challenges as the state prepares voter guides and other materials.

But that might not be the only route: Democrats in the California Assembly, led by Assemblymember Evan Low, have urged Attorney General Rob Bonta to use his authority to seek an expedited state court ruling on Trump’s eligibility.

Bonta hasn’t publicly responded to the lawmakers’ request. A spokesperson said the office is carefully reviewing the Colorado decision, adding that the court’s ruling “is a powerful indication of the importance and seriousness of these claims.”

And in New York, two lawsuits have been filed so far to keep Trump off the primary ballot. But the more successful effort could be one led by Democratic state lawmakers.

“New York is next,” State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal wrote on X after the Colorado decision. In an interview, he said he has been speaking with attorneys about potential legal action.

The Manhattan Democrat has already co-authored a letter to the state Board of Elections asking it to bar Trump and co-sponsored legislation to amend state election law to do the same.

Asked which venue has the greatest chance of success, Hoylman-Sigal said, “Every approach has to be pursued to its conclusion.”