The Trump v. Anderson Case: A Critical Moment for Democracy
Graphics by Madeline Barber
As the 2024 Presidential election quickly approaches, a group of Colorado voters have filed a petition in the Denver District Court to remove former President Donald Trump from Colorado's Republican primary ballots in the upcoming 2024 election. Their argument focuses on Trump’s involvement in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, claiming this action violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, subsequently preventing him from being eligible for election. The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments on February 8 and released their decision on March 4, 2024. The legal issue at hand is whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from holding the Presidency and, thus, from appearing on Colorado’s 2024 presidential primary ballot. The outcome of the Trump v. Anderson case not only has extreme consequences for the outcome of the 2024 election but also for the democratic nature of U.S. federal elections in the future.
Thus far, the District Court for the City and County of Denver has found clear and convincing evidence that Trump participated in an insurrection. However, the District Court interpreted Section 3 of Amendment Fourteen of the Constitution as not applicable to the office of the presidency. On appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court, holding that Section 3 does, in fact, disqualify Trump from holding office, therefore rendering it lawful to prevent him from being presented on the ballot, and making him ineligible under Section 1-1-113(1) of the Colorado Election Code. Jena Griswold, the Colorado Secretary of State, specifies that the First Amendment does not entitle Colorado Republicans to include Trump on the ballot, as they must maintain ballot integrity under the Colorado Election Code.
The crux of the issue lies in the debated interpretation of Section 3. Section 3 reads, “No person shall be…elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States… who, having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.” There are two questions stemming from this provision: Does President Trump qualify as an ‘officer of the United States?’ Can the states enforce this without Congress first taking action?
Trump’s lawyer Jonathan Mitchell argued that Section 3 was not self-executing, meaning that the act could not be enforced without federal legislation passed by Congress. This line of reasoning heavily relies on the precedent of an 1869 decision known as Griffin’s Case. If the court were to uphold the precedent from Griffin, it would mean that Trump could not be removed from the ballot without congressional action, effectively granting him ballot access. Mitchell also contended that the language of Section 3 addresses the eligibility to hold office, not to be elected for office. Finally, he acknowledged the argument that the presidency does not constitute an office under the United States while noting that this language has conflicting interpretations in different sections of the Constitution. Finally, Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee argue that “his statements were protected political speech under the First Amendment and do not satisfy the “incitement” requirement the Supreme Court set out in Brandenburg v. Ohio,” adding that the First Amendment protects their right to select a nominee through the election process.
This contention was honed by attorney Jason Murray, who represented the respondents. Murray claimed that the defense was using this nuance in language to create a specific caveat that would constitute an exemption for former President Trump, as he is the only President who has held the office without previously taking the oath for another government position. Murray argued instead that Section 3 includes broad language for the purpose of including all types of insurrectionists and that this exception should not be allowed. His argument focuses on Colorado exercising its right to keep Trump off of the ballot to prevent wasting votes on electing an individual who would only be disqualified from holding office later.
Arguably the most crucial aspect of this case is the implications of the decision not only on the upcoming election but also on the distribution of power between the national and state governments. Chief Justice John Roberts, followed by his fellow justices, raised concerns that if the Supreme Court allowed Colorado to proceed in eliminating Trump from the ballot, other states would follow suit, disqualifying other Republican and Democratic candidates to the point where there will be “just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election.” Justice Elena Kagan also took a pragmatic approach, primarily focusing on the structural concerns of the decision. She emphasized how the outcome of a Presidential election is an extremely national question and questioned why a single state should have the authority to determine this outcome.
Trump v. Anderson arguably puts the fate of an election in the hands of the Supreme Court, and the political implications of the outcome are tremendous. Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that this attempt to remove Trump from the ballot “has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree.” Throughout the debate, it seemed that most justices are unified in their opposition to allowing Colorado to remove Trump from the ballot due to the massive political implications of infringing on voters’ rights in the election and federalist concerns of giving individual states the power to determine the results of a national election.
On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court released their per curiam opinion with the unanimous opinion that states cannot have a role in disqualifying federal candidates and office holders. The states do not have the power to enforce section 3 of the Constitution in regards to the Presidency without Congress taking further action; therefore, Colorado is not constitutionally permitted to remove Trump from the ballot for the 2024 election.
In their concurring opinion, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson state, “Allowing Colorado to [bar Trump from the ballot] would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles,” properly explaining the pragmatic reasoning behind why Colorado cannot eliminate Trump from their ballot. The structure of the Constitution purposefully separated powers between the states and federal government in a way that allowed for individual states to act in ways that met their specific needs while maintaining a framework of national unity. Just as the federal government cannot take this power from the states, the states cannot usurp the power to have such a large influence over national elections.
This united judgment speaks volumes for the implications on this case. All justices agree that Colorado cannot act in eliminating Trump from the ballot, proving that this is not by nature a partisan case. While Trump as an individual has been extremely divisive in politics, both liberal and conservative justices are united on preserving the democratic nature of our electoral system and the importance of upholding Constitutional values.