December 21, 2023 09:35 AM UTC

Kudos: The Colorado Supreme Court Did Its Job

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

Tuesday’s decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to prevent Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 Presidential ballot is a massive decision that will (likely) ultimately lead to the United States Supreme Court making a national ruling about Trump’s ability to appear on the ballot for President in other states.

Regardless of your opinion on the decision, it’s worth taking a moment to appreciate that the Colorado Supreme Court made a difficult decision instead of doing the same thing that too many judges do when faced with complicated questions on elections or campaign finance: Punt.

It’s easy to refuse to rule on a matter of law related to an election by muttering, “Let the voters decide.” Judges in Florida, Michigan, and Minnesota all punted on similar cases related to Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 election, using technicalities to avoid making tough decisions and falling back on the idea that voters should be the final arbiters of the law. It’s what judges often do on questions about a candidate’s residency and/or regarding campaign finance violations. And it’s wrong.

It’s ridiculous to argue about whether or not the Colorado Supreme Court SHOULD have made a ruling in this case, which is what Trump defenders such as Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-ifle) have been doing since Tuesday:

This is actually much less complicated than Boebert makes it out to be. The problem isn’t that the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against Trump; the problem is that Trump incited an insurrection, which the Constitution plainly describes as a reason to exclude someone from running for federal office.

Either laws exist, or they don’t.

Either the Constitution is a document that we should follow, or it isn’t.

If you believe in laws and the Constitution, then you must support the application of these rules. OF COURSE the Colorado Supreme Court should have issued a decision in this case. That’s literally why courts exist: To interpret laws and statutes. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that all citizens must approve of a court’s decision; if that were the case, then again, there would be no point to even having a court.

It is an abdication of responsibility and a mockery of both our system of law and form of government for courts to shrug off election-related decisions that fall to them. Just as Sheriffs shouldn’t be free to pick and choose which laws they choose to enforce, judges shouldn’t vacillate on doing their job depending on the difficulty of the question. The Colorado Supreme Court did its job, and we should be proud of that.

Republican bellyaching about the Colorado decision and defense of Trump is also chock full of contradictions — from Trump himself. As Aaron Blake writes for The Washington Post:

Trump on Tuesday night derided the ruling as “eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice.” But not only did Trump try to overturn the will of voters after the 2020 election, he has on myriad occasions pushed the idea that candidates should be disqualified irrespective of the voters’ will.

That was basically the thrust of Trump’s rise to political prominence. He built a base in the early 2010s with the ugly and false “birther” campaign, whose entire premise was that Barack Obama wasn’t eligible to be president. [Pols emphasis]

For the purposes of this writing, it’s instructive to remember that Trump has very much approved of the idea of removing candidates from the ballot based on Constitutional grounds — from Obama and Hillary Clinton to Ted Cruz and Anthony Weiner. The only reason he disagrees now is because it’s a lot less fun when you’re on the other side of the argument.

The Colorado Supreme Court DID ITS JOB in interpreting the law and making a decision on Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 Presidential election. When the U.S. Supreme Court inevitably takes up the question, it will also be doing what it is supposed to do.

Either laws exist, or they don’t.

Either the Constitution is a document that we should follow, or it isn’t.

These are the only questions that matter here. Kudos to the Colorado Supreme Court for answering those questions.