Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez spoke haltingly and emotionally on Thursday night about her awareness of the risks she was taking when she joined a Colorado Supreme Court decision last December finding Donald Trump constitutionally disqualified from appearing on the state’s ballot.

“I want to emphasize: I did not relish that vote at all. I cast it because in my view, it was what the law required,” said Márquez, addressing the nonprofit Colorado Judicial Institute’s annual gala in downtown Denver.

The comments mark one of the only times a member of Colorado’s highest court has publicly addressed the 2023 decision of Anderson v. Griswold. There, four Republican and two unaffiliated voters argued state elections law prohibited Trump from appearing on this year’s primary ballot because he engaged in insurrection trying to overturn the 2020 election results.

Trump is now projected to win this presidential election and take office in January. During the campaign he promised to seek retribution against his various opponents.

In the Colorado case, a Denver trial judge originally stopped short of declaring Trump ineligible, notwithstanding his actions to provoke his supporters’ Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Then in December, the state Supreme Court, by 4-3, deemed Trump disqualified under the “insurrection clause” of the 14th Amendment. It was the first entity in the country to do so.

Márquez, speaking two days after Election Day, did not name Trump or the case itself, but described the moment she joined the court’s majority.

“Our court meets every Thursday morning for conference to discuss and decide cases. It’s a very formal affair. We wear suits. It starts promptly at 9. It’s bad form to be late. So, I work very hard never to be late for conference,” she said.

“About a year ago, I arrived late to conference. Why?” Márquez continued. “That day I knew that I would be casting probably the most consequential vote of my career.

“And I’d been lying awake since 2 a.m. thinking about it. Because I knew what that would mean. I understood fully the personal consequences that would flow from it. Consequences potentially to my career. Consequences potentially to my physical safety. The safety of my family. The safety of my coworkers, my colleagues, my law clerks, my neighbors.”

Wiping away tears, she said she was late to conference that day “because I was in my chambers bathroom vomiting from the stress. I knew exactly what was on the line.”

She added that she respected the three justices who dissented from the majority’s conclusion that Trump was ineligible to appear on the ballot.

“But I did it because it was my duty. And honestly, each of us did our duty that day to apply the law without fear or favor,” Márquez continued, “and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that we each concluded the law required.”

Fulfilling that duty “came at a real cost. Not just to me. It cost my family. My in-laws — out of state. My neighbors. My law clerks. Our first-floor court staff. It came at great cost to all of us.”

She added that she shared the story “not because I want anyone to feel sorry” for the court, but as a reminder of the role judges occupy.

“Our trial court judges all around the state who operate in the trenches every day, making tough decisions, face versions of this almost routinely now,” Márquez said. “And serving as judges these days also means facing security risks and confronting all sorts of challenges to our mental, emotional and physical wellbeing.”

Reuters reported this year that judges who have handled criminal and civil cases involving Trump, and those cases of his supporters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, have received death threats, racist slurs and even personal criticism by Trump himself.

Prior to the election, Justice Melissa Hart, who also joined the majority in the disqualification case, became the first member of the Supreme Court to publicly address the personal consequences of her vote.

“My house was swatted. I had nine guns pointed at me by the Denver Police Department. It was the scariest night of my life,” said Hart, speaking in Colorado Springs at a judicial conference in September.

Police confirmed they had entered Hart’s home “in an emergent manner with guns drawn” as a result of “swatting” — which is the act of falsely reporting an emergency to generate a police response.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the disqualification decision shortly after Trump appealed.

Márquez was appointed to the state Supreme Court in 2010 after working at the Colorado Attorney General’s Office. She is the longest-serving member among the current justices and she became chief justice this summer — the first Latina to head the judicial branch. Voters just opted to retain her to a 10-year term.

Márquez closed her speech by raising concerns about the threats to civic institutions.

“I worry that some of the broader social dynamics that we are witnessing right now are ultimately eroding the rule of law,” she said. “The rule of law is so precious and fragile. The independence of our judiciary is so precious. And fragile. Both are critical to our democratic system of government, which ultimately depends on the individuals who occupy positions of power. People who choose to wield that power fairly and justly.”