Connect with us

Colorado

Trump vs Colorado: Could US Supreme Court stop him running for office?

Published

on

Trump vs Colorado: Could US Supreme Court stop him running for office?


The US Supreme Court on Thursday began hearings about Donald Trump’s eligibility for the presidency in a historic case that could either boost the former president’s reelection campaign or see him kicked off the list of candidates for the upcoming November elections.

Filed by voters opposing Trump, the case will see justices decide whether a Colorado court was right to rule that Trump violated an article of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution during the 2020 elections saga, and whether that violation means he can be barred from running for office. It is part of a swath of legal challenges Trump is facing ahead of the elections, including four criminal indictments.

Here are the key things you need to know about Thursday’s proceedings.

What does the case allege Trump did?

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars people who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the state from holding federal office. Trump’s challengers argue that his role in the January 6, 2021 attack on Congress means he should be barred from seeking office.

Advertisement

So far, two US states – Colorado and Maine – have invoked the clause and declared Trump ineligible to run in their territories, even as primaries heat up, with Trump leading the Republican race to the White House.

Who brought the case and how did it reach the Supreme Court?

A group of Colorado voters filed the lawsuit in August 2023. While a Colorado district court denied their attempt to bar Trump from the election, the Colorado Supreme Court, on appeal, decided in December that Trump had indeed violated Section 3 of the Amendment – the first ruling of its kind. Electoral officers in Maine also made a similar ruling.

Trump’s team appealed to the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC following Colorado’s decision. The Colorado Supreme Court, and the state of Maine, have stayed their rulings until the Supreme Court decides on the case.

The court’s decision could have nationwide implications, meaning if the Colorado Supreme Court decision is upheld, Trump could be removed from the ballot in other states as well.

What was Trump’s defence?

In a written argument to the court, Trump’s team argued that the insurrection clause could not be invoked if Congress had not enacted a specific law around it.

Advertisement

The team referred to a very old precedent, the Griffin case, to support this argument. In the 1869 case, Chief Justice Salmon Chase of California ruled that the insurrection ban was not “self-executing”, and could not be enforced without Congress acting on it first.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh placed particular emphasis on that case in his exchange with Trump’s opposers, pointing out how close to the enactment of the Amendment the case was.

“It’s by the chief justice of the United States a year after the 14th Amendment,” Kavanaugh said, referring to Justice Chase. “That seems to me highly probative of what the meaning or understanding of that otherwise elusive language is.”

Jonathan Mitchell, Trump’s attorney, also argued in court that Trump did not have a deliberate plan to overthrow the government, adding that an insurrection needed an “organised, concerted effort”. Mitchell said the march on the US Capitol on January 6 was a “riot”.

Former US President Donald Trump gestures to his supporters outside Trump Tower on January 26, 2024 [Eduardo Munoz/Reuters]

What did the Supreme Court justices say?

Supreme Court justices, both liberal and conservative, hit lawyers representing Trump’s challengers with questions that seemed to suggest the court may back Trump in a ruling. The arguments did not focus on whether Trump had violated the insurrection clause, but rather on narrower provisions, like who the clause was meant for.

Advertisement

Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices questioned if the clause banning insurrection was meant to apply to former US presidents and if the article could be invoked without US Congress first passing a law on it.

The justices also questioned if courts striking off candidates would affect voters’ rights and, therefore, US democracy itself. If Trump is struck off the ballot in Colorado, they said, it would set a precedent and could see other states strike off presidential candidates in future elections, allowing the choice of who becomes president to come down to a “handful of states”.

The Supreme Court is tackling whether the Colorado court’s decision was correct, but a definitive ruling against Trump would open the door for other states to bar Trump from the ballot. The decision would be a binding precedent in states where the law requires that candidates on the ballot must be eligible for the post they’re running for, according to some experts.

“Your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree,” Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative justice, told the attorneys. “What about the background principle – if you agree – of democracy?”

Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, questioned the power of states in deciding candidates for nationwide elections.

Advertisement

“Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens, but for the rest of the nation?” Kagan asked.

What happens next?

It usually takes the Supreme Court a few months to issue rulings, however, the court is expected to expedite a decision in this case. Experts say an opinion is likely in a matter of weeks –  before Super Tuesday on March 5, the day when most states will hold primaries, including Maine, Colorado and 13 others.

Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Trump said it was “a beautiful thing to watch in many respects”, but complained about the case being brought at all.

Trump is on track to clinch the Republican ticket, whether or not he is on the ballot in these two states, and despite facing a slew of legal challenges in the lead-up to the elections.

Experts say Trump has used appearances at the court cases to rile up his supporters and build momentum for his campaign ahead of the November 5 vote.

Advertisement



Source link

Colorado

Tina Peters’ lawyers try to convince Colorado court to overturn conviction for voting system breach – WTOP News

Published

on

Tina Peters’ lawyers try to convince Colorado court to overturn conviction for voting system breach – WTOP News


DENVER (AP) — Lawyers for former Colorado elections clerk Tina Peters will try to convince a state appeals court on…

DENVER (AP) — Lawyers for former Colorado elections clerk Tina Peters will try to convince a state appeals court on Wednesday to overturn her conviction in a case revolving around the 2020 presidential election as her supporters, including President Donald Trump, continue to pressure the state to set her free.

Peters, the former clerk in Mesa County, was convicted of state crimes for orchestrating a data breach of the county’s elections equipment, driven by false claims about voting machine fraud after Trump lost his reelection bid. She is serving a nine-year sentence at a prison in Pueblo after being convicted in 2024 in her home county, a Republican stronghold that supported Trump.

Trump pardoned Peters in December, but his pardon power does not extend to state crimes. Peters’ lawyers have said Trump has the authority to pardon her, arguing that President George Washington issued pardons to people convicted of both state and federal crimes during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1795.

Advertisement

Lawyers for the state pointed out that the governor of Pennsylvania at the time issued pardons to those who broke state laws during the unrest. Peters’ lawyers then argued that the president has a right to pardon people who committed crimes to carry out federal duties, such as preserving election information.

Prosecutors said Peters became fixated on voting problems after becoming involved with activists who had questioned the 2020 presidential election results, including Douglas Frank, an Ohio math teacher, and MyPillow founder Mike Lindell.

Peters used another person’s security badge to allow a former surfer affiliated with Lindell, Conan Hayes, to watch a software update of her county’s election management system. Prosecutors said he made copies of the system’s hard drive before and after the upgrade, and that partially redacted security passwords later turned up online, prompting an investigation. Hayes was not charged with any wrongdoing.

Peters didn’t deny the deception but said she had to do it to make sure election records weren’t erased. She claims she should not have been prosecuted because she had a duty under federal law to preserve them.

Her lawyers also say the partially redacted passwords didn’t pose a security risk and pointed out that some of the same type of voting system passwords for Colorado counties were accidentally posted on a state website until they were discovered in 2024. Prosecutors determined there was no intent to commit a crime so no charges were filed.

Advertisement

Lawyers for the state have argued that Peters did not need to commit crimes to protect election data because her staff had already backed up the information before the upgrade. Instead, they say the hard drive copies captured proprietary Dominion Voting Systems software.

Peters also said District Court Judge Matthew Barrett violated her First Amendment rights by punishing her with a stiff sentence of nearly a decade for making allegations about election fraud. He called her a “charlatan” and said she posed a danger to the community for spreading lies about voting and undermining the democratic process.

Last month, Peters lost an attempt in federal court to be released from prison while she appeals her conviction.

Her lawyers say she is entitled to at least a new sentencing hearing because Barrett based his sentence partially on a contempt conviction in a related case that the appeals court threw out last year. They also are asking the appeals court to recognize Trump’s pardon and immediately set Peters free.

Peters’ release has become a cause celebre in the election conspiracy movement.

Advertisement

Trump has lambasted both Democratic Gov. Jared Polis and the Republican district attorney who brought the charges, Dan Rubinstein, for keeping Peters in prison.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons tried but failed to get Peters moved to a federal prison. Polis has said he is considering granting clemency for Peters, characterizing her sentence as “harsh.”

Jake Lang, who was charged with assaulting a police officer during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and was later pardoned by Trump, announced on social media last month that “January 6er Patriots” and U.S. Marshals would storm a Colorado prison to release Peters unless she is freed by the end of this month.

The post included a phone video interview with Peters from behind bars. But a message on Peters’ X account said she is not affiliated with any demonstration or event at the prison and denounced any use of force against it.

Copyright
© 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

Colorado men’s basketball begins two-game Big 12 road swing at Cincinnati

Published

on

Colorado men’s basketball begins two-game Big 12 road swing at Cincinnati


At the moment, Bangot Dak is going up and getting ‘em as well as any rebounder during Colorado’s Tad Boyle era.

Yet even a performance on the defensive glass unseen in years wasn’t enough to curb the Buffaloes’ habit of surrendering offensive rebounds.

The CU men’s basketball team has struggled defensively throughout the season and, more recently, it has also struggled on the glass. Yet CU has an opportunity to correct both shortcomings on Wednesday, as it begins a two-game Big 12 trip against a Cincinnati team that has struggled offensively.

“Coach just tells me to go get it at the highest point. I feel like if I can do that, there’s not a lot of people that we’re going to play against that can go up and get it,” Dak said. “I’m starting to realize that and I’m just going up to get it at the highest point.

Advertisement

“Coach has just been on us about getting those rebounds. I feel like if no one else is going to do it, I’ve got to do it. Coach says no one is going to do the dirty work for you, so somebody has got to step up and do it. I’m trying to make sure teams can’t get offensive rebounds against us.”

Dak has recorded double-digit rebounding totals in each of the past three games and four of the past six, grabbing a career-high 13 during Saturday’s loss against Texas Tech. All 13 of those rebounds occurred on the defensive glass, giving Dak the most defensive rebounds in a game since Jabari Walker recorded 14 against California on Feb. 17, 2022. It’s the most rebounds by a CU player without grabbing a single offensive rebound since Andre Roberson recorded 14 against Dayton on Nov. 15, 2012.

Dak’s rebounding surge, however, hasn’t kept the opposition off the offensive glass, as the Buffs have surrendered at least 12 offensive rebounds in each of the past three games and five of the past seven. While CU will be challenged to correct that against the Bearcats, the matchup also presents an opportunity for the Buffs to put together an improved defensive performance.

Cincinnati began the week ranked last in the Big 12 in scoring (73.6), field goal percentage (.425), 3-point percentage (.311) and free throw percentage (.638). Those struggles can be partially attributed to a few personnel issues as Jizzle James, an honorable mention All-Big 12 selection last year, missed the first 10 games of the season while dealing with a personal matter. James has averaged 11.8 points in six games since returning.

And although the Bearcats enter Wednesday’s matchup 0-3 in the conference, they lost those games by a combined 10 points, opening the Big 12 slate with a seven-point defeat against No. 7 Houston. Last week, Cincinnati lost road games against West Virginia and Central Florida by a combined three points.

Advertisement



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Colorado

Polis’ budget proposal would cut Colorado support for training new doctors

Published

on

Polis’ budget proposal would cut Colorado support for training new doctors


Gov. Jared Polis’ administration is proposing an $18.2 million cut to Colorado’s funding for medical education, a reduction that hospitals say might force them to reduce training slots.

The cut applies to residency programs, which train medical school graduates for three to seven years before they move into independent practice. Medicare funds direct costs, such as residents’ salaries, for the majority of available slots.

States can then choose whether to use Medicaid — whose costs they split with the federal government — to fund indirect costs and additional slots. Currently, Colorado is one of 23 states that do, according to Polis’ Jan. 2 budget letter.

The Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, which administers the funding, didn’t clarify Monday whether the cut would end the state’s contribution to indirect medical education costs, or if it would continue to provide a smaller amount.

Advertisement

“Reductions in (indirect medical education) payments would be limited to system hospitals, those more able to lean on their systems partners to share financial burden; no rural hospitals would be affected by this policy,” the letter said.

Hospitals also can bill patients’ insurance for services provided by residents, though not for the time that established doctors spend supervising them.

The state faces a challenging budget year, with a shortfall of nearly $1 billion. The governor’s budget proposal, which includes significant cuts to Medicaid beyond reducing spending on medical education, got a less-than-enthusiastic reception from lawmakers when he presented it in November, though.

The American Association of Medical Colleges reported 21 hospitals in Colorado participate in teaching. More than one-quarter of the 1,220 residency slots in the state don’t receive funding for direct costs from Medicare, making indirect cost funding important to maintaining them, it said in a fact sheet.

The $18.2 million cut to medical education at facilities that are part of systems would cost teaching hospitals an additional $41.5 million in federal matching funds, said Heather Retzko, one of the principals at Policy Matters, a lobbying group that works with the hospital industry in Colorado. At this point, the department hasn’t clarified if all 17 teaching hospitals that are part of systems would face equal reductions, she said.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending