Colorado Supreme Court Disqualifies Trump from Presidential Ballot In a historic decision, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that former President Donald Trump is ineligible for the White House and must be removed from the state’s presidential primary ballot. This ruling is based on the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause, specifically Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals who engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding office. The court’s decision, with a majority vote of 4-3, marks the first time that Section 3 has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate. The district court judge’s ruling, which found Trump to have incited the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol but did not bar him from the ballot, was overturned by Colorado’s highest court. The court’s majority emphasized the seriousness of their decision, acknowledging the weight of the questions at hand and their duty to apply the law without bias. The decision has been stayed until January 4, pending a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump’s legal team has vowed to appeal the disqualification to the nation’s highest court. While Colorado’s decision may not impact the outcome of next year’s presidential election, as Trump lost the state by 13 percentage points in 2020, it sets a precedent that could potentially lead to more courts and election officials excluding Trump from must-win states. The use of Section 3 to disqualify Trump is significant, as it was originally intended to prevent former Confederates from returning to government after the Civil War. The provision applies to individuals who took an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it. Although dozens of lawsuits have been filed nationally to disqualify Trump under Section 3, Colorado is the first state where the plaintiffs have succeeded. In the Colorado case, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace concluded that Trump had indeed engaged in insurrection by inciting the attack on the Capitol. Trump’s attorneys argued that Section 3 did not apply to the president, as the language in the provision referred to “officers of the United States” and the presidency was not specifically named. However, the state’s highest court disagreed, stating that it would be nonsensical to bar former Confederates from low-level offices but not from the highest office in the country. The outcome of this legal battle will have significant implications for Trump’s political future and the interpretation of the insurrection clause. As personal injury bloggers, we understand the importance of upholding constitutional principles and the rule of law. We will continue to monitor this case and provide updates on its developments.