Dozens Of State AGs, GOP Officials Tell Colorado Supreme Court To Keep Trump On Ballot


OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.

A lengthy list of parties, including over a dozen attorneys general from states controlled by Republicans, have filed briefs in a legal challenge to the constitutional eligibility of former president Donald Trump to appear on Colorado’s 2024 ballot.

Following last month’s ruling against six voters arguing that Trump’s role in inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. was unfounded, the Colorado Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case this week. An insurrection clause from the Civil War bars him from the Capitol, Colorado News reported.

In her ruling from November 17, Judge Sarah B. Wallace stated that the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 does not apply to the presidency, even though she found that Trump “engaged in insurrection” according to that provision. This provision forbids someone from holding office again if they do so after taking an oath to support the Constitution.

Both parties quickly appealed the case to the state’s highest court. According to the plaintiffs, who have the support of the Washington, DC-based nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, Wallace’s conclusion that the president is not included in the list of “officer(s) of the United States” in Section 3 is “nonsensical.” Lawyers for Trump have asked the Supreme Court to examine several aspects of the case, including the conclusion that the former president was involved in an alleged insurrection.

Several non-affiliated parties have submitted briefs in favor of or against the case’s resolution with the Colorado Supreme Court. Plenty of other states have also filed similar challenges to Trump’s 2024 candidacy, and everyone is waiting for the federal government to decide the matter by the highest court in the land.

The plaintiffs’ arguments were rejected by the court in a similar case to the ones in Minnesota and Michigan, according to a group of nineteen states leaning toward the Republican party, spearheaded by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita.

“The 14th Amendment entrusts Insurrection Clause questions to Congress, not state officials or state courts,” the Nov. 29 brief states. “Allowing each state and its courts to determine eligibility using malleable standards would create an unworkable patchwork of eligibility requirements for the president.”


In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Rokita called challenges to Trump’s eligibility an “assault on our republic.”

In addition to Trump’s petition, fourteen state Republican parties, spearheaded by Kansas’s GOP, submitted a brief endorsing his eligibility to vote.

The state parties, in agreement with the Colorado Republican Party—which has been an intervenor in the trial alongside Trump—argue that Secretary of State Jena Griswold has no authority to unilaterally bar Trump because her role is merely “ministerial” in certifying the candidates chosen by the parties to the ballot.

Republican state secretaries from Missouri, Ohio, and Wyoming also submitted briefs claiming that Trump was “wrongfully” accused of insurgency.

“This is a classic case of judicial overreach, and the (lower court judge’s) ruling in this case has no basis in law,” Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose said in a statement. “The district court’s order relies on flimsy and circumstantial evidence to reach a flawed conclusion with far-reaching implications both for the president’s legal defense and for the broader democratic process of free and fair elections.”

Mary Estill Buchanan, a former Republican secretary of state of Colorado, appeared in an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs’ case. She told the court, “This country and its institutions are at a crossroads.”

“(Trump) allowed a lust for power to supersede his own Oath of Office and over two centuries of American political precedent. Mr. Trump has sought at every turn to inject chaos into our country’s electoral system in the upcoming 2024 presidential election,” the brief said. “He should be given no opportunity to do so in the state of Colorado.”

The Colorado Supreme Court will hear two hours of oral argument in the case starting at 1 p.m. on Dec. 6.


In November, a prominent legal expert dissected a state judge’s decision in Colorado regarding an attempt to have Trump removed from the ballot for 2024 by referring to the “insurrection” clause of the 14th Amendment.

After reading the decision, Fox News analyst Sol Wisenberg found only one “significant” aspect: the judge “held back.” Wisenberg also argued that the Colorado case, pending the outcome at the state Supreme Court, could impact the 2024 presidential election.

District Judge Sarah B. Wallace stated in her decision that she thinks the ex-president was involved in an insurrection. However, the 14th Amendment does not specifically mention the presidency among the numerous positions an individual cannot attain if they are guilty of insurrection.

“Part of the Court’s decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation that would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section Three,” the judge wrote.


“After considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that ‘officers of the United States’ did not include the President of the United States,” she said. “It appears to the Court that, for whatever reason, the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”

In an appearance on “The Ingraham Angle,” Wisenberg and host Laura Ingraham discussed the myriad of court cases against Trump, eventually focusing on Wallace’s ruling.

“And Sol, then in that Colorado case, the judge there… a separate case, obviously on 14th Amendment grounds in Colorado. The judge there ruled that Trump—they made a factual finding saying that Trump is responsible for inciting an insurrection, but he can remain on the ballot,” Ingraham said.

“Well, the left went crazy with that all day long, saying that was, you know, fantastic because it sets a factual predicate in Colorado. Is that significant today?” she asked.

“I don’t think it’s significant,” Wisenberg responded. “The significant thing in that opinion was that she held back. She realizes the historical record is very mixed on this, so she exercised judicial restraint — you can tell it killed her. But what some judge in Colorado thinks about insurrection, I don’t think is going to have any effect on any of the federal cases here.”

Test your skills with this Quiz!