The 4-3 decision by the Colorado State Supreme Court that determined former president Donald Trump did commit an act of insurrection rendering him ineligible for a place on Colorado’s presidential primary ballot was intended to clear the matter up. It didn’t. In fact, it created a division that had even hardcore Trump detractors dissenting with the court’s decision and many of his most ardent supporters agreeing with it.
Last Tuesday’s ruling was historic. No state has ever barred a presidential candidate from a place on the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. So unprecedented is the ruling that it will almost certainly be left up to the U.S. Supreme Court to make a final determination.
The four justices affirming that Trump should be left off the ballot for his role in the insurrection were Justices Richard L. Gabriel, Melissa Hart, Monica Márquez and William W. Hood III. Those dissenting were Chief Justice Brian Boatright, Justice Carlos Samour and Justice Maria Berkenkotter.
To reach this point, one must first know the name Norma Anderson. She is the ‘Anderson’ in the now historic Anderson v Griswold case taken up by the state Supreme Court. Anderson, for newcomers to Colorado, once rode herd over the state’s Republicans in both houses of the state legislature. She was also well respected on both sides of the aisle for her leadership and political skills in getting things done. Griswold is Gena Griswold the Colorado Secretary of State whose office is responsible for the names on state election ballots.
A Republican to her core, Anderson said that January 6th, 2021, a day when she, like millions of others, was glued to news coverage of the attempted siege of the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters, was an insurrection inspired by and at the behest of Donald Trump. The state’s high court ruling only confirmed what she saw.
“I was shocked. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. It was all day long,” she said in a recent phone interview. “I cried. What is going on? That’s our democracy.” What made the painful images on the television screen even more searing, Anderson remembered, was Trump’s inaction.
“The president is the only one who calls out the National Guard and he did not do it. He sat there and enjoyed it. I was livid.”
Because of the historic nature of the ruling, as well as a massive difference of opinion on whether or not Trump’s actions—or inaction—rise to the level of insurrection, the case has created some odd bedfellows.
For example, Maryland Democratic Congressman and constitutional scholar Jamie Raskin and retired federal judge and Republican J. Michael Luttig, the man former Vice President Pence consulted before certifying votes for the 2020 Presidential Election, agree with the ruling. Disagreeing are former Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill and former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr who call it a victory for Trump.
The Court’s decision has created a Colorado conundrum. Griswold, you see, must create ballots for the state’s presidential primary scheduled for March 5th. But not knowing if the state’s high court ruling is upheld and Trump is allowed on the ballot has forced her to wait until January 4th before she can greenlight the primary’s ballot. Without word from the U.S. Supreme Court, Griswold and the rest of the nation must remain in a fog. A number of other state’s are now weighing the same questions as the one Colorado’s high court just decided.
“If the case is either denied a hearing by the Supreme Court or the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is affirmed by the Supreme Court, Donald Trump will be ineligible to be on the ballot,” said the Secretary of State’s office in replying to a LaVozColorado question. “Voters,” it added, “would not be able to cast a ballot for Donald Trump in Colorado and write-in votes for Trump would not be counted.” Trump, said Griswold’s office, “has not filed any paperwork to be considered a write-in candidate.” Griswold has said she will follow whatever court decision is in place when it is time to certify ballots.
Both Griswold and Anderson said that they have been the targets of either threats or hate-filled messages following the historic ruling. Immediately after Anderson v. Griswold was filed, Griswold said death threats began rolling in. Griswold counted 64 actual death threats and 900 non-lethal threats of abuse. But the reality is that Griswold had nothing to do with the filing. It was Anderson’s group, which included four Republicans and two Democrats who filed the suit.
Anderson, who wears her Republican convictions proudly, said she has received plenty of calls but none from ‘a Republican’. “My party, (the one) I was born in, raised in, worked in, and elected by was a party that believed in strong business, strong economy, strong defense,” she said. “I was proud of being a world power and that’s all gone.” The party she once served, she said, is Trump’s party. She said, her critics and Trump’s people, call her a RINO, Republican in Name Only.
While there has been plenty of speculation about what comes next following Colorado’s momentous court ruling, there has been silence from the Supreme Court. But it may boil down to a few realistic options. Most agree that the most likely option would be the Supreme Court overruling the Colorado decision.
