American presidential election 2024: Three questions about the ban imposed on Donald Trump in the state of Colorado

The Supreme Court of this US state points out the former head of state's responsibility for the attack on the Capitol in January 2021, considering that he is “unqualified” due to a passage in the United States Constitution. hold the office of president.

Published on December 20, 2023 6:31 p.m

Reading time: 5 mins

Candidate for the Republican primary for the 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump, during an event in Waterloo, Iowa, USA, on December 19, 2023. (SCOTT OLSON / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA / AFP)

An unprecedented decision in a presidential election campaign that has already been marked by numerous legal cases. The Colorado Supreme Court declared on Tuesday, December 19, in a ruling (in PDF format) that Donald Trump, the heavy favorite in the Republican primary, is no longer eligible for the presidency of the United States in that state comes. It is about the role of the former American president in the attack by his supporters on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 in Washington, when the results of the 2020 presidential election were being certified, which he lost to the Democrat Joe Biden.

“This is an important and extraordinary decision by a state Supreme Court,” said law and politics professor Derek Muller, quoted by The New York Times. “Never in history has a presidential candidate been disqualified from the vote pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Franceinfo answers three questions raised by this court decision, less than a month before the start of the process of nominating the Republican candidate for the 2024 presidential election.

1 Why is Trump declared unelectable in Colorado?

These legal actions began in September, recalls the New York Times. Six voters, two independents and four Republicans have initiated this procedure against Donald Trump (in PDF) in collaboration with the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew). For plaintiffs, the former chairman and current nominee is “disqualified pursuant to Section No. 3 of the 14th Amendment.” This stipulates that a person who has “participated in an insurrection or rebellion” against America’s highest law cannot be eligible for re-election after taking an oath to “support” it. The initiators of this action point out that Donald Trump was sworn in at his inauguration on January 20, 2017 and that the attack on the Capitol actually constituted “an insurrection against the American Constitution.”

In the first instance, Judge Sarah Wallace declared on November 17 (in PDF format) that the candidate, who contested his defeat in the November 2020 election, “acted with the specific intent of inciting political violence and directing it toward the Capitol to prevent this “the confirmation of the election” of Joe Biden. However, in their opinion, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the case of a former president. For the judge, the reference to “official of the United States” in this amendment “does not include the President of the United States.” “The absence of the President from the list of positions addressed by the amendment” and the fact that the President's oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, and not as stated in the amendment To “support” them, he came to the following conclusion: The authors of this passage were not targeting a person who had taken the oath of office as president.

On Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled otherwise. By a majority of four to three, the highest court in this US state concluded that Donald Trump “is not qualified to hold the office of president.” Adding: “Given that he is disqualified, it would be an unlawful act under election law for the Colorado secretary of state To him as a candidate in the presidential primary.”

2 What are the reactions after this decision?

“We won!” he congratulated himself on the social network the crew association. In a statement, its president, Noah Bookbinder, welcomed a ruling that was “not only historic and justified, but also necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country.” The Trump camp, on the other hand, denounced a “deeply undemocratic” verdict. “We will quickly appeal to the United States Supreme Court and request a stay of this decision,” announced the candidate’s campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung. “We have every confidence that the United States Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor.”

In their decision, the Colorado Supreme Court justices said they were “aware they were entering uncharted territory” but anticipated such a scenario. They called on state election officials to remove Donald Trump's name from the ballot in the Republican primary. However, that injunction has been stayed until Jan. 4, the last day before primary election ballots are certified, in case an appeal is filed in federal court by then. In the event of an appeal to the nation's highest court, the stay “remains in effect and the election official must continue to place President Trump's name on the 2024 primary ballot until she receives an injunction or mandate from the Supreme Court.”

How will the Supreme Court with a conservative majority respond? For American politics and history specialist Lauric Henneton, its members “can hardly decide quickly, in one direction or the other.” “They can also say that it is not their responsibility or go back to the first instance verdict,” he believes. Nevertheless, it is “likely” that the Supreme Court, due to its rather conservative positioning, “will find a way to protect Donald Trump from the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”

3 Can there be similar rulings in other countries?

Legal action has been taken in several other states regarding Donald Trump's eligibility for the next presidential election. As the New York Times reports, the Minnesota Supreme Court has already dismissed a lawsuit similar to the one that was successful in Colorado. In a ruling issued in November, it ruled that courts or election officials could not stop the Republican Party from presenting Donald Trump as its candidate in the primary. A New Hampshire state judge also rejected a similar request, as did a Michigan judge. In this situation, the plaintiffs filed an appeal.

According to Lauric Henneton, the Colorado Supreme Court's decision “could very well be an exception, something that remains on the order of a unique event” and that other states will not necessarily follow. He also points out that “if the Federal Court decides beforehand,” this will have more weight than decisions made locally.