Connect with us

Colorado

Supreme Court set to hear Trump challenge to Colorado ballot ban that cited 'insurrection'

Published

on

Supreme Court set to hear Trump challenge to Colorado ballot ban that cited 'insurrection'


U.S. President Donald Trump looks on he as meets with Colorado Governor Jared Polis and North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum in the Cabinet Room of the White House on May 13, 2020 in Washington, DC.

Doug Mills-Pool | Getty Images

The Supreme Court is set Thursday morning to hear oral arguments on an effort by former President Donald Trump to reverse a ruling by Colorado’s top court barring him from that state’s 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot.

Advertisement

The arguments, which are expected to last several hours, come as Trump has a commanding lead in the national GOP primary race, with a long-shot bid from former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley appearing to be the only potential stumbling block to him securing the party’s nomination this summer.

The Colorado Supreme Court in December ruled that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president because he “engaged in insurrection” by inciting the 2021 Capitol riot as part of his effort to reverse his loss to President Joe Biden in the 2020 election.

That bombshell 4-3 ruling was based on Section Three of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states “no person” can serve as an officer of the United States who, having previously taken an oath of federal office, “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S.

Six Republican and unaffiliated voters in Colorado had filed the lawsuit that led to the state Supreme Court ruling.

Trump’s lawyers in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last month argued that the Colorado court decision was “based on a dubious interpretation” of Section Three, while noting that similar efforts to bar Trump from presidential ballots are underway in more than 30 states.

Advertisement

Read more CNBC politics coverage

The U.S. Supreme Court “should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

Those lawyers said that Trump “is not even subject” to Section Three because a president is “not an ‘officer of the United States’ under the Constitution.”

The attorneys also argue that even if Trump were subject to the provision, he did not engage in any conduct that qualifies as an insurrection.

Sean Grimsley, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the case that led to Trump’s disqualification, during a call with reporters Wednesday said that Trump’s claim that he was not an officer of the United States as president has become his lead argument in the case.

Grimsley predicted that claim will be closely scrutinized by the Supreme Court justices during oral arguments.

Advertisement

“I think the justices will be very interested in that question, if only because President or former President Trump has made that the lead argument in this case,” Grimsley said.

He and another lawyer for the plaintiffs dismissed that argument.

They said it was obvious that a president is an officer of the United States and that it requires “linguistic acrobatics” to argue otherwise.

Mario Nicolais, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, acknowledged that to win the case the attorneys on his side “have to win every argument” they are making to disqualify Trump.

“We think we will,” Nicolais said.

Advertisement

“We think we win so many of those arguments on multiple different levels, and that’s why we feel very strongly that we will win this case,” he said.

The plaintiffs’ key arguments are that Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution, and Section Three applies to insurrectionist presidents, that state courts can adjudicate Section Three under state ballot access laws, and that states can exclude presidential candidates from ballots if they are deemed constitutionally ineligible.

The plaintiffs also argue that Congress does not have to first deem a candidate ineligible under Section Three.

“Donald Trump is disqualified today,” Nicolais said. “He was disqualified on January 6, 2021 when he engaged in that, he disqualified himself under our Constitution.”

Three of the nine Supreme Court justices who will hear his appeal Thursday were appointed by Trump — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Three other justices who were appointed by Republican presidents with Trump’s appointees comprise a conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court.

Advertisement

Despite that bloc, Trump has failed to get the Supreme Court to take his side in a number of past cases, including in his efforts to challenge the voting processes and results during the 2020 presidential election.



Source link

Colorado

Denver shelter working to end homelessness for at risk youth, funding at risk

Published

on

Denver shelter working to end homelessness for at risk youth, funding at risk


Urban Peak is working to help Colorado youth have safe housing and support, and the organization says the community need is growing. They say 90% of the youth they assisted have been able to find safe housing and, even with funding cuts looming, it will continue to help those in need.



Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

GUEST COLUMN: Principles for Guiding River Water Negotiations – Calexico Chronicle

Published

on

GUEST COLUMN: Principles for Guiding River Water Negotiations – Calexico Chronicle


Next week is the annual gathering of “water buffaloes” in Las Vegas. It’s the Colorado River Water Users Association convention. About 1700 people will attend, but probably around 100 of them are the key people—the government regulators, tribal leaders, and the directors and managers of the contracting agencies that receive Colorado River water.

Anyone who is paying attention knows that we are in critical times on the river. Temporary agreements on how to distribute water during times of shortage are expiring. Negotiators have been talking for several years but haven’t been able to agree on anything concrete.

I’m just an observer, but I’ve been observing fairly closely. Within the limits on how much information I can get as an outsider, I’d like to propose some principles or guidelines that I think are important for the negotiation process.

See also

Advertisement
  1. When Hoover Dam was proposed, the main debate was over whether the federal government or private concerns would operate it. Because the federal option prevailed, water is delivered free to contractors. Colorado River water contractors do not pay the actual cost of water being delivered to them. It is subsidized by the U.S. government. As a public resource, Colorado River water should not be seen as a commodity.
  2. The Lower Basin states of Arizona, California, and Nevada should accept that the Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming are at the mercy of Mother Nature for much of their annual water supply. While the 1922 Colorado River Compact allocates them 7.5 million acre-feet annually, in wet years, they have been able to use a maximum of 4.7 maf. During the long, ongoing drought, their annual use has been 3.5 maf. They shouldn’t have to make more cuts.
  3. However, neither should the Upper Basin states be able to develop their full allocation. It should be capped at a feasible number, perhaps 4.2 maf. As compensation, Upper Basin agencies and farmers can invest available federal funds in projects to use water more efficiently and to reuse it so that they can develop more water.
  4. Despite the drought, we know there will be some wet years. To compensate the Lower Basin states for taking all the cuts in dry years, the Upper Basin should release more water beyond the Compact commitments during wet years. This means that Lake Mead and Lower Basin reservoirs would benefit from wet years and Lake Powell would not. In short, the Lower Basin takes cuts in dry years; the Upper Basin takes cuts in wet years.
  5. Evaporation losses (water for the angels) can be better managed by keeping more of the Lower Basin’s water in Upper Basin reservoirs instead of in Lake Mead, where the warmer weather means higher evaporation losses. New agreements should include provisions to move that water in the Lower Basin account down to Lake Mead quickly. Timing is of the essence.
  6. In the Lower Basin states, shortages should be shared along the same lines as specified in the 2007 Interim Guidelines, with California being last to take cuts as Lake Mead water level drops.
  7. On the home front, IID policy makers should make a long-term plan to re-set water rates in accord with original water district policy. Because IID is a public, non-profit utility, water rates were set so that farmers paid only the cost to deliver water. Farmers currently pay $20 per acre foot, but the actual cost of delivering water is $60 per acre foot. That subsidy of $60 million comes from the water transfer revenues.
  8. The SDCWA transfer revenues now pay farmers $430 per acre-foot of conserved water, mostly for drip or sprinkler systems. Akin to a grant program, this very successful program generated almost 200,000 acre-feet of conserved water last year. Like any grant program, it should be regularly audited for effectiveness.
  9. Some of those transfer revenues should be invested in innovative cropping patterns, advanced technologies, and marketing to help the farming community adapt to a changing world. The IID should use its resources to help all farmers be more successful, not just a select group.
  10. Currently, federal subsidies pay farmers not to use water via the Deficit Irrigation Program. We can lobby for those subsidies to continue, but we should plan for when they dry up. Any arrangement that rewards farmers but penalizes farm services such as seed, fertilizer, pesticide, land leveling, equipment, and other work should be avoided.
  11. Though the IID has considerable funding from the QSA water transfers, it may need to consider issuing general obligation bonds as it did in its foundational days for larger water efficiency projects such as more local storage or a water treatment plant to re-use ag drain water.

Much progress has been made in using water more efficiently, especially in the Lower Basin states, but there’s a lot more water to be saved, and I believe collectively that we can do it.





Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

Colorado mother says Lakewood crash killed son, left 2 of her children critically injured as driver is arrested

Published

on

Colorado mother says Lakewood crash killed son, left 2 of her children critically injured as driver is arrested


A mother is grieving after a crash in the Denver metro area last weekend left her son brain-dead and two of her other children fighting for their lives.

Lakewood police say 22-year-old Andrew Logan Miller has been arrested in connection with the crash, which happened Dec. 6 around 7:30 p.m. near Kipling Parkway and West 6th Avenue.

Police say Miller was driving an SUV southbound on Kipling Parkway at a high rate of speed when it collided with a bus carrying a wrestling team from Central High School, which is located in Grand Junction in Mesa County.

Sixteen people were taken to hospitals.

Advertisement

Among the injured were three siblings who were riding inside the SUV.

On Friday, their mother, Suleyma Gonzalez, identified them as Julio Gonzalez, 18, Analelly Gonzalez, 17, and Christopher Gonzalez, 14.

Analelly and Christopher remain in critical condition. Julio will never wake up.

“I didn’t want to believe it, until they had to do the second testing where they didn’t find blood going through his brain,” she said. “My other two are in comas.”

Gonzalez said doctors ultimately declared Julio brain-dead.

Advertisement

She describes her children as disciplined students and ROTC members with plans for the future.

“Two of my kids were going to graduate this year,” she said. “No drugs. No alcohol. They were good kids.”

CBS Colorado’s Tori Mason, right, interviews Suleyma Gonzalez.

CBS

Advertisement


Gonzalez confirmed that Miller, who was driving the SUV at the time of the crash, was her daughter’s boyfriend.

“I know he loved my daughter,” she said. “I don’t think he did this on purpose or intentionally. It was an accident.”

Police say the investigation is ongoing, but believe speed played a major role in the crash.

Miller was arrested Wednesday night and is facing multiple charges, including:

• Vehicular assault (7 counts)
• Speeding 40 mph or more over the limit
• Reckless driving
• Child abuse (2 counts)
• Reckless endangerment

Advertisement

“My kids know when you get in somebody’s car, there’s always a risk. Always,” she said.

Julio’s organs will be donated. He’s on life support, while the hospital searches for matches.

“He wanted to give to the world,” she said. “Now that I can’t get him back, we want to give life to somebody else.”

family-photo.jpg

Suleyma Gonzalez with her family  

Suleyma Gonzalez

Advertisement


Miller is currently being held in the Denver County Jail and is awaiting transfer to the Jefferson County Jail. His bond and court appearance have not yet been announced.

Lakewood police say the investigation remains active.

Gonzalez, a single mother of five, says her focus now is on her surviving children and getting clarity.

“I just want answers.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending