Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Colorado Republican Party responded fiercely to the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 presidential ballot. In an unequivocal statement issued on Tuesday night, the party declared that if Trump’s disqualification stood, they would withdraw from the primary altogether and shift to a purely caucus-based system.

Expressing discontentment with the ruling, the GOP denounced the court’s decision, citing Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for Trump’s disqualification. They vehemently opposed the notion, asserting that listing Trump as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot would constitute a wrongful act under the Election Code, according to the court’s interpretation.

The Colorado Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision was temporarily suspended pending an appeal, allowing the case to continue until January 4. This ruling, indicating Trump’s disqualification based on alleged involvement in an insurrection on January 6, 2021, was met with sharp criticism and immediate plans for appeal from the Trump campaign.

The campaign swiftly vowed to file an appeal, characterizing the court’s decision as flawed and undemocratic. They expressed confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, anticipating a favorable ruling in their favor, and sought an end to what they labeled as “unAmerican lawsuits.”

The Colorado Supreme Court’s interpretation and conclusion about the events of January 6 being an insurrection faced strong backlash. Hans von Spakovsky, an election law expert and former FEC commissioner at the Heritage Foundation, condemned the ruling as “nakedly partisan” and “anti-democratic.” He contended that the interpretation of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment was incorrect and disputed the legal basis of the court’s decision, arguing that it overstepped its authority in enforcing a provision not adequately supported by federal law.

Von Spakovsky raised several objections, including the contention that Section Three’s application to individuals such as the president had not been established in court, and emphasized the absence of federal legislation for its enforcement, thereby questioning the Colorado Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in enforcing Section Three. He highlighted historical context and legal arguments to challenge the court’s interpretation and its legitimacy in barring Trump from the ballot.