Trump’s candidacy is burnt toast now being decided by SCOTUS to be tossed into the garbage pale.
What is at the heart of the Colorado Supreme Court Disqualification and SCOTUS in the upcoming oral and written arguments: Constitutionally, in the U.S., it is the states that administer the elections, not the Federal Government, and therefore, it is the states that elect the president. SCOTUS already decided and confirmed this in 2020 in our cases in front of the court.
BLUF: The 2020 Chiafalo vs Washington and its sister case of Baca, Baca & Nemanich vs. Williams, Colorado Secretary of State, (which I was a party to) hinges on the fact that in their unanimous opinion in 2020, the court recognized that the states have broad authority to run presidential elections and therefore its electors. (U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1, and states retain the power to regulate their elections, Burdick, 504 U.S. at 433)
The Court held that the state possesses plenary authority over electors, confirmed in SCOTUS 2020 (Chiafalo vs. Washington and Baca et al. vs Colorado).
In the Colorado Supreme Court opinion:
“States exercise these powers through “comprehensive and sometimes complex election codes,” regulating the registration and qualifications of voters, the selection and eligibility of candidates, and the voting process itself. Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983) (“Celebrezze”); see also, e.g., § 1-4-501(1), C.R.S. (2023): (setting qualifications for state office candidates). These powers are uncontroversial and well-explored in U.S. Supreme Court case law.”
Therefore— the state can decide if a presidential candidate is disqualified within that plenary authority so long as it doesn’t conflict with another constitutional provision. [emphasis mine]
Because the people don’t directly elect a president, electors do; the presidential candidate can be disqualified based on the state's authority over electors---(as those on the Nov ballot).
Colorado Supreme Court:
But does the U.S. Constitution authorize states to assess the constitutional qualifications of presidential candidates? We conclude that it does. Under Article II, Section 1, each state is authorized to appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2. So long as a state’s exercise of its appointment power does not run afoul of another constitutional constraint, that power is plenary. Chiafalo v. Washington, 140 S. Ct. 2316, 2324 (2020); McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 25 (1892)
Therefore, if you grasp the constitutional implications, our federal system elects the president through the states, the Electoral (College) system, and the states that determine the qualifications for electors.
Colorado Supreme Court:
“But voters no longer choose between slates of electors on Election Day. Chiafalo, 140 S. Ct. at 2321. Instead, they vote for presidential candidates who serve as proxies for their pledged electors. Accordingly, states exercise their plenary appointment power not only to regulate the electors themselves (Baca et al vs Colorado) but also to regulate candidate access to presidential ballots. Absent a separate constitutional constraint, then, states may exercise their plenary appointment power to limit presidential ballot access to those candidates who are constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President. And nothing in the U.S. Constitution expressly precludes states from limiting access to the presidential ballot to such candidates. See Lindsay v. Bowen, 750 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014)
No party, in this case, has challenged the Secretary’s authority to require a presidential primary candidate to confirm on the required statement-of-intent form that he or she meets the Article II requirements of age, residency, and citizenship and to attest further that he or she “meet[s] all qualifications for the office prescribed by law.” Moreover, several courts have expressly upheld states’ ability to exclude constitutionally ineligible candidates from their presidential ballots. See id. (upholding California’s refusal to place a twenty-seven-year-old candidate [emphaisis added] on the presidential ballot); Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App’x 947, 948–49 (10th Cir. 2012) (affirming the Secretary’s decision to exclude a naturalized citizen [emphasis added] from the presidential ballot); Socialist Workers Party of Ill. v. Ogilvie, 357 F. Supp. 32 109, 113 (N.D. Ill. 1972) (per curiam) affirming Illinois’s exclusion of a thirty-one-year-old candidate from the presidential ballot [emphasis added].
As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is “a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” [emphasis added] 495 F. App’x at 948.
Bottom Line: For the court to overturn Colorado’s Supreme Court, they would have to rule that the states do not have plenary power to administer constitutional provisions for ballot access of Presidential candidates in limiting their power to administer qualifications for Electors and whom they are pledged to. This would unravel the entire Federal system of states electing the president through the Electoral (College) system.
My opinion: Trump and his candidacy is a metaphor for the burnt toast pictured above and possessing a carcinogen for our nation and democracy and needs to be already headed to the garbage pale—you can’t save it or scratch off the burn as the toast crumbles. Even if he secures nominating delegates to the Republican National Convention, it is a political dead end unless it leads to outright violent overthrow of the government.
Currently, 14 Electoral votes are unavailable to Trump (depending on the court ruling), and 19 other states are currently deciding or appealing disqualification determination, representing 286 (including the 14 in CO and ME); as we know, it takes 270 to win. There remain 17 states where no challenges have surfaced, and each state has its process for determining eligibility.
Even if Trump has a majority with his MAGA supporters at the National Convention, if he cannot win in the Electoral College, what will the Republican Party do if Trump's pledged electors cannot be certified and placed on the ballot?
There is no way to put the proverbial cat back in the bag; the legal process is underway, and it is not political but legal and constitutional. Trump is ineligible to be elected because he broke his oath of office and attempted a coup through an insurrection after the election and on January 6th, as he sought to overturn his previous lost election through unlawful means. Constitutionally, he is not eligible for a second bite of the apple in our democracy because you only get one chance to fulfill your oath. The voters do not have the right to decide this again; only the states do, each state one at a time. This is within our Federal Constitution System.
But if SCOTUS reasons that the 14th Amendment does not apply, then neither does the rest of the Constitution in this authoritarian era of our nation.