Colorado’s Supreme Court dropped a bombshell ruling yesterday, declaring former President Donald Trump disqualified to appear on the state primary ballot. The decision held that the Civil War-era Disqualification Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment applies to Trump for taking part in an insurrection. Four of the seven justices said that language applied to Trump’s words and deeds on January 6, 2021. At least one lower court, as well as multiple courts in other states, had previously rejected the same line of argument.
News of the ex-President’s disqualification exploded on X. Writer and Fandom Pulse mastermind Jon Del Arroz offered color commentary on breaking reportage from notorious firebrand Alex Jones:
Speculation on the ruling’s implications flew, with Democrat operatives claiming victory while defining democracy as “denying over 70 million Americans the chance to vote for their preferred candidate.”
Dissident web journal The Z Blog predicted that the decision would lead to a domino effect, whereby the GOP would take advantage of the ruling to replace Trump on the ballot.
Such a development would seem to fit a pattern established when the FBI conducted a raid on Mar-a-Lago, the former President’s Florida home. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy already called on Mr. Trump to drop out of the 2024 presidential race back in August.
On the other hand, the former President’s loyal supporters are working to get ahead of the story, deftly spinning persecution by the system as a feather in Mr. Trump’s campaigning cap. Their contention is that Trump’s main appeal has always been as an outsider candidate. And it doesn’t get much more “outside” than being prosecuted by the powers that be.
Related: “The Tragedy of Trump”
Related: “Candy Desk Honey Trap”
In their response to the ruling, the Trump Campaign called the Justices’ decision “completely flawed” and vowed to take the case to the US Supreme Court.
SCOTUS, with a Conservative majority in large part appointed by Trump, is expected to rule in his favor. Yet concerns persist among political commentators that the GOP establishment will use this ruling – as well as Mr. Trump’s ongoing woes in criminal and civil court – to disqualify him from the presidential nomination in 2024.
And if Mr. Trump is disqualified from running next year, the question looms as to who the Republican party will choose to replace him. With previous heir-apparent Ron DeSantis of Florida dropping in the polls, and Indian-Americans Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy engaged in cutthroat competition, Trump’s speculative replacement remains unclear.
Only time can tell Donald Trump’s political fortunes. But this much is certain: We’re in for a year of the biggest political spectacle since 2016.
For first access to grand fictional spectacle of a kind not seen since the pulp era, join my Neopatron insiders.
You’ll get access to the exclusive Discord, and elite patrons get first looks at my works in progress, plus invites to each month’s live author AMA. Join today and claim your seat for the December Q&A tonight!
Sign up now via Patreon or SubscribeStar.
I presume it isn’t legal for a state to refuse to place a candidate on the ballot even though they are in every other State? I don’t know much about the intricacies of the American System. God only knows what will happen in 2024, but it’s very unlikely to be boring.
I put that question to some lawyer mutuals on X. From my layman’s understanding of those discussions, the US Constitution reserves to each State the authority to decide how they conduct primaries. And if memory serves, there have been recent instances of candidates appearing on some States’ ballots but not others’.
Tl; dr: Colorado – or any other State – could keep Trump off the ballot, even if the other 49 include him.
That seems like it could lead to some very strange situations indeed. After all, if a state judges a candidate to be a terrorist and ineligible to stand for election, but then they go on to win the Presidency as a whole, what then? Will the state accept the leadership of one they judged unworthy of even contesting that leadership? But if they refused it, that would de facto be an act of secession. Plus, if the candidate ultimately lost the election, it seems this would provide fertile ground for claims of foul play – “I would have won if state such-and-such had not illegally prevented my supporters from voting for me”, etc. Then again, perhaps the Founders presumed that if things got to that point then the country as a whole was already FUBAR and you had bigger problems to solve than legal quibbles.
With one state only removing a candidate, I honestly don’t know. Presumably the state would fall back in line with the other 50 and the officials responsible would laugh nervously while everyone is expected to let it go with everyone remaining in office. The last time this happened en-mass, Abraham Lincoln was removed from most Southern states’ ballots, and secession and civil war did indeed break out. Not making any predictions, just providing the precedent that I’m aware of.
Good point. I missed that one somehow.
One of the more ominous possible things not to have happened since 1860, I’ve got to say
Ominous is definitely the word for it.