Welcome to Court Crawl, Colorado Politics’ roundup of news from the third branch of government.

The Colorado Supreme Court held two hours of oral arguments on the question of whether a former president is constitutionally disqualified from appearing on the state’s ballot next year, and the justices return this week to hear even more cases.

Insurrection, disqualification and the presidency

?  Readers are likely familiar with the case unfolding in Colorado, where a trial judge decided Donald Trump is eligible to appear on the state’s presidential primary ballot next year, even though the 14th Amendment disqualifies those who previously swore an oath to the U.S. Constitution and subsequently engaged in insurrection from holding future office. The Colorado Supreme Court dedicated two hours last week to exploring the question of Trump’s continued eligibility.

?  Because Colorado’s case has addressed the substance to a far greater degree than elsewhere, the discussion was expansive: Does Congress need to authorize enforcement of the disqualification provision? Why is the presidency not specifically mentioned under the 14th Amendment? Did Trump’s involvement in Jan. 6 amount to an insurrection?

?  “One of the counterarguments is that by failing to resolve this issue on the merits now, we create the potential for chaos in January of 2025. And so, there’s much emphasis on this in the scholarly literature about how it may be better for us to resolve it sooner rather than leave the potential for a constitutional crisis before the next presidential election.” -Justice William W. Hood III

?  The secretary of state’s office has a deadline of Jan. 5, 2024 to certify the presidential primary ballot. Of course, even if the state Supreme Court issues its decision well before then, the U.S. Supreme Court could choose to intervene, leading to uncertainty about Trump’s ultimate fate in Colorado – and likely in other states that are poised to follow suit.

?  Here is Colorado Politics’ coverage of the arguments:

Colorado justices grapple with unprecedented possibility of disqualifying Trump from ballot

In the justices’ words: Quotes from Wednesday’s arguments in the Trump disqualification case

Who’s weighing in on Trump’s ballot eligibility before the Colorado Supreme Court?

Oral argument calendar resumes

?  The justices will continue their normal calendar of oral arguments this week, hearing a total of five cases on Tuesday and Wednesday:

University of Denver v. Doe: Can universities be held liable for failing to deliver a “thorough, impartial and fair” investigation into a student’s alleged sexual misconduct on campus? (Note: This case was rescheduled from earlier in the fall.)

Great Northern Properties, LLLP v. Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc. et al.: Who is the owner of oil and gas rights that lie beneath a public street?

Clark v. People: Should a Black defendant’s conviction be automatically reversed because the trial judge refused to dismiss a juror who seemingly made a racist statement during jury selection?

Washington v. People: Was it a mistake for a defendant’s jury to render a verdict on murder charges and drug charges in the same trial?

People v. Montoya: How much evidence did a jury need to hear about a drunk driving suspect’s alleged change of heart after he initially refused to take a blood test?

Heard on appeal

?  By 4-3, the justices agreed a Fremont County judge appropriately used her authority to reduce a first-degree murder charge to a second-degree murder charge in response to the district attorney’s office’s habitual withholding of evidence across multiple cases.

 ?  If a losing party in a civil case appeals a monetary judgment against them, they generally have to secure a certain amount of money or collateral to avoid having to pay while the appeal proceeds. The Supreme Court decided a Colorado law capping such bonds at $25 million is valid.

 ?  A Washington County judge wrongly disclosed a report about misconduct in the local child welfare office to the state’s ombudsman, the Supreme Court concluded.

?  Although the justices initially took interest in deciding whether El Paso County prosecutors violated a defendant’s right to a speedy trial with their mid-case appeal, the court ultimately turned aside the defendant’s petition.

 ?  The Supreme Court will hear two cases questioning whether child welfare caseworkers must provide a Miranda warning to suspects before questioning them in custody, as a police officer would.

In federal news

?  A federal judge ruled that a jury will decide whether a Denver sheriff’s deputy used excessive force on a wheelchair-bound man who allegedly spat on the deputy.

?  Two federal magistrate judges pulled back the curtain on the anonymous reviews that lawyers gave of their performance. The judges attempted to explain why they conduct themselves in certain ways, even if it grinds attorneys’ gears.

Vacancies and appointments

?  This afternoon, the U.S. Senate will vote to confirm federal public defender Richard E.N. Federico to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, headquartered in Denver. Federico will fill a vacancy based in Kansas.

?  There are three candidates to succeed retiring Chief Judge Don Quick in the 17th Judicial District of Adams and Broomfield counties: Arturo G. Hernandez, Magistrate Sara Sheffield Price and District Court Judge Meghan P. Saleebey, who currently sits on the bench in neighboring Weld County.

?  Applications are due by Dec. 12 to lead the Colorado Judicial Department’s judicial officer outreach program, which state lawmakers authorized in 2019 to educate diverse candidates about applying to judgeships. Sumi Lee, the inaugural holder of the position, left for the governor’s office earlier this year.