Colorado Secretary Of State: ‘i’m Disappointed’ By Scotus Ruling On Trump Eligibility

Colorado’s chief election official was disappointed in — but not surprised by — the Supreme Court allowing former President Donald Trump to remain on the ballot, overturning her state's supreme court which ruled him ineligible to run for office again.

“It’s concerning that federal candidates, at this point, can engage in insurrection and then face no accountability for ballot access,” Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold told POLITICO shortly after the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

She was referencing Trump's role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, which the state high court ruled was grounds for disqualifying him under a section of the 14th Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that only Congress, not individual states, can disqualify federal candidates or officeholders under that reasoning.

The Supreme Court steered clear of any discussion of Trump’s culpability for Jan. 6 — or whether the assault on the U.S. Capitol that day qualified as an insurrection at all. Those seeking to remove Trump leaned on an interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says that those who engaged in an insurrection after previously taking an oath to support the Constitution are ineligible to serve in federal office.

Griswold, an elected Democrat, said the court forecasted how it was going to rule during oral arguments last month, when justices across the ideological spectrum signaled that they were concerned about a potential patchwork of decisions that could result from individual states making different calls on a candidate’s eligibility.

“This decision did not surprise me, given the oral arguments,” Griswold said. “I’m disappointed; I think states under federalism should be able to enforce the clear words” of the so-called “insurrection clause” in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

“But I've always said throughout this case,” she added, “regardless of what happens, it's up to the American people to save democracy in November.”

In Maine, Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows — who also found that Trump was ineligible to run in December — modified that ruling on Monday in light of the court’s decision in Trump v. Anderson, saying Trump’s candidacy is also valid there.

“What’s important for election officials is knowing whether the votes will be counted or not,” Bellows said in a brief interview on Monday evening. “So now, as we administer the election tomorrow and do the election night tabulation, we have clarity. Regardless of our personal views, we will uphold the Constitution and the laws, and administer and count the votes for Mr. Trump as the U.S. Supreme Court has directed us to do.”

And in Illinois — where a state judge last week ruled Trump was ineligible, the third and final state where that happened — a spokesperson for the Illinois Board of Elections said that case was now resolved in light of the Supreme Court decision. Trump will appear on the ballot there as well.

Griswold said she was frustrated with the timing of the Supreme Court’s decision, which comes just a day before the state’s Republican presidential primary on Super Tuesday.

Trump was never actually removed from the ballot in any of the states. The Colorado Supreme Court automatically paused its own ruling to allow for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court; the Maine and Illinois decisions were similarly suspended pending appeals.

But uncertainty in elections can create voter confusion that affects how they vote. The question of Trump’s eligibility, for example, could have made someone wary of casting a ballot for him if they weren’t sure their vote would count.

“I would have loved to see the ruling last week, or the week before,” Griswold said, noting that as of late last week over 400,000 GOP primary ballots had already been cast in the state. (Colorado voters predominantly vote via the mail or vote early.) “It’s really important that Coloradans knew in a timely fashion whether a candidate on the ballot had the ability to be eligible.”

Griswold noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday said individual states still had the authority to make the call about candidates running for state office, so there could still be future litigation around the insurrection clause.

“I do think that there’s a chance this will be further litigated, as states try to hold oath-breaking insurrectionists accountable as they run for state office,” she said. “At the end of the day, we are seeing a larger threat to democracy.”

Shia Kapos contributed to this report.