A quick summation of why we’re unsettled by the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that Donald Trump is disqualified from appearing on Colorado’s 2024 ballot:

It’s not because it could affect the outcome of Colorado’s presidential vote. Colorado has voted with the Democrats in the last four presidential elections, including Joe Biden’s win in 2020. Like it or not, we’re a blue state when it comes to the Electoral College map. Trump or no Trump on the ballot, that’s unlikely to change, making the ruling largely academic.

But nothing happens in a vacuum, and Colorado’s ruling may open the door to other challenges in swing states.

It disenfranchises every Trump supporter in this state, feeding a narrative that Trump is a political target of nefarious Democratic Party forces. Needless to say, marginalizing Trump supporters this way – a reminder of why they support the human hand grenade in the first place – is hardly the way to burnish faith in our institutions.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

The court touched on this in its split 4-3 ruling that found Trump engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies him from holding office:

“We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”

Understood. The court effectively said it doesn’t care about how the ruling might be perceived or what effect it might have on popular sentiment regarding politics and elections. It looked at this issue through a purely legal lens; though it’s worth noting that the seven justices – all appointed by Democratic governors – were split. And the lawsuit challenging Trump’s inclusion on the ballot was filed by six Colorado Republican and independent voters.

The court forcefully concluded that Trump was the architect and catalyst of a failed bid to retain power.

“President Trump’s direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary,” the court found.

“Moreover, the evidence amply showed that President Trump undertook all these actions to aid and further a common unlawful purpose that he himself conceived and set in motion: prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power,” it added.

Normally, we are loath to question a court ruling, especially one from the state’s most esteemed bench so rich in details. But the fact that Trump has yet to be tried and convicted of state and federal criminal insurrection charges makes the ruling premature.

What if prosecutors fail to convince juries that Trump is guilty of criminal wrongdoing in inciting an insurrection? It would be an awkward, irreconcilable situation for Trump to be deemed disqualified from holding office if criminal charges don’t stick. An adjudication by finders of fact – a jury in our system – seems like a prerequisite for determining ballot eligibility.

Ripping the bandage off a legal sore spot, as Colorado did, upsets a delicate balance. The Minnesota Supreme Court had a similar opportunity, but ruled in favor of Trump.

Colorado’s ruling shows a path that others may follow. The Michigan Supreme Court will consider an appeal of a state court ruling in favor of Trump. If that court were to disqualify Trump, that would have national ramifications because Michigan is more purple than Colorado.

But the Colorado ruling is unlikely to be the final word on the matter.

Colorado’s ruling is on hold until Jan. 4, pending Trump’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has an opportunity to settle the matter for the nation. Or it could refuse to hear the case on a federalism premise that each state has the authority to administer its elections however it sees fit.

In our view, it would be better for Trump to remain on the nation’s ballots until a trial court convicts him of an insurrection-related crime. If he’s convicted, questions of his eligibility can be addressed then.

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Editorial Board

Read the original article here.