Trump asks Colorado Supreme Court to rule he is eligible to hold Office

Washington: Former President Donald Trump urged the Supreme Court on Thursday to reverse a ruling banning him from the primary ballot in Colorado and to declare him eligible to seek and hold the office of the presidency.

Trump's brief, his main submission in an extraordinary case with the potential to alter the course of the presidential election, was a forceful recitation of more than half a dozen arguments about why the Colorado Supreme Court had gone astray in ruling him an insurrectionist banned from office by the Constitution.

"The court should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado's lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots," the brief said.

The case will be argued February 8, and the court will probably decide it quickly, perhaps by March 5, when many states, including Colorado, hold primaries.

The case turns on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War, it bans those who had taken an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States" from holding office if they then "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Congress can remove the prohibition, the provision says, but only by a two-thirds vote in each chamber.

The Colorado court ruled that Section 3 covers Trump in light of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election that culminated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

The Colorado case is one of several involving or affecting Trump on the Supreme Court's docket or on the horizon. An appeals court is expected to rule in the coming days on whether he has absolute immunity from prosecution, and an appeal to the Supreme Court from that ruling is very likely. And the justices have already agreed to decide on the scope of a central charge in the federal election-interference case against Trump, with a ruling by June.

The case from Colorado, Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, attracted several friend-of-the-court briefs filed Friday supporting Trump, including one on behalf of 179 Republican members of Congress, among them Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, and Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House.

The brief urged the justices to "minimize the partisan incentive to boot opponents off the ballot using the incredible sanction of Section 3," adding that "the decision below will only supercharge state officials to conjure bases for labeling political opponents as having engaged in insurrection."

The brief of the six voters who prevailed in the Colorado Supreme Court, along with friend-of-the court submissions supporting them, are due January 31.

Trump's brief attacked the Colorado ruling on many grounds. If he persuades a majority of the justices on any one of them, he will prevail.

The brief said Trump himself had not "engaged in insurrection."

"President Trump never participated in or directed any of the illegal conduct that occurred at the Capitol on January 6, 2021," the brief said. "In fact, the opposite is true, as President Trump repeatedly called for peace, patriotism, and law and order."

The brief added: "Raising concerns about the integrity of the recent federal election and pointing to reports of fraud and irregularity is not an act of violence or a threat of force. And giving a passionate political speech and telling supporters to metaphorically 'fight like hell' for their beliefs is not insurrection either."

The brief also said Section 3 did not apply to him because the president was not among the officials covered by the provision. "The president is not an 'officer of the United States' as that term is used in the Constitution," the brief said.

And it said that the presidency was not one of the offices from which oath-breaking officials were banned.

The brief said that Section 3 disqualified people subject to it from holding office— not from seeking it. If the candidate were elected, the petition said, Congress could remove that disqualification before the candidate's term began.

The provision, the brief said, "does not prevent anyone from running for office, or from being elected to office, because Congress can remove a Section 3 disqualification after a candidate is elected but before his term begins."