We’re closer to learning whether the courts will find Donald Trump eligible for the 2024 presidential ballot despite his involvement with the Jan. 6 insurrection, as multiple challenges move forward.
A judge in Colorado this week rejected Trump’s effort to dismiss a lawsuit ahead of trial, which is scheduled for Oct. 30.
The former president had invoked what’s known as an anti-SLAPP law, which serves to dismiss frivolous claims targeting constitutional rights. As the state district judge recounted in her opinion, the former president had argued that the challengers’ claims “all stem from protected speech or the refusal to speak, and that because the speech concerned election fraud and a hard-fought election, they are the epitome of public issues.”
But that law doesn’t apply to this elections case, Judge Sarah Wallace said. Among other things, she wrote in a ruling published Wednesday that the purpose of the law “is not served in an expedited election ballot proceeding because under the anti-SLAPP statute regime, the Court determines within the first three months of the case whether it can proceed on the merits. Here, the Court intends to issue a decision on the merits in far less time.”
We’ll see what “far less time” means, with trial set to start this month. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars people from office who’ve taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution but then have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” The Colorado suit was filed by Republican and unaffiliated voters, represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, who want to protect the rights of voters “to fully participate in the upcoming primary election by ensuring that votes cast will be for those constitutionally qualified to hold office.”
Meanwhile, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold told the court Wednesday that she has received Trump’s statement of intent to appear on the ballot in the state’s presidential primary. Griswold faces a Jan. 5 deadline for certifying candidates, so she intends to hold off on Trump’s application, pending further direction from the court. In a separate voter lawsuit challenging Trump’s eligibility, the Minnesota Supreme Court has set oral arguments for Nov. 2. The group that brought the Minnesota case, Free Speech for People, has also filed a suit in Michigan on behalf of voters there; that case is being briefed and doesn’t have a trial date yet. We still don’t know how the courts — including, perhaps, the U.S. Supreme Court — will answer the pivotal question that’s unfolding while Trump fights several criminal and civil cases. But we’re closer to finding out. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Blog newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump prosecutions and more.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro," a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
Latest Post
Recommended
