The Washington Post’s editorial board is coming out against a ruling from Colorado’s Supreme Court that kicked former President Donald Trump off the ballot.
“Never mind whether Donald Trump should be president a second time: The U.S. Supreme Court now looks likely to determine whether he even can. The justices must do so, mindful that the legal issues involved are murky — and that the implications of a court determining whether a candidate may participate in a democracy’s elections are substantial,” the Post’s editorial board wrote in an op-ed on Wednesday.
It noted the ruling from Colorado that found the former president ran afoul of the 14th Amendment’s language barring those who had once taken a state or federal oath to uphold the Constitution from holding office again if they engaged in or supported an insurrection.
“Obvious as this analysis might seem to citizens appalled at the then-commander in chief’s conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, the law is not so clear,” the editorial noted.
The Post pointed out it seems the presidency is included in offices insurrectionists would be barred from holding, even though it is not explicitly listed while other offices are.
However, the column went on to explain there is uncertainty about whether Congress would need to pass legislation for the section barring insurrections from holding office to take effect, it noted, “Chief Justice of the United States Salmon P. Chase ruled that such a move was necessary just a year after the 14th Amendment’s 1868 ratification.”
Still, the Post pointed out there is the question of whether Trump actually participated in an insurrection.
While the Colorado Supreme Court ruled he did, the column noted one of the dissenting justices on the court raised concerns about the due process for the former president.
“Not only has Mr. Trump not been convicted of insurrection either by a jury of his peers or from the bench by a judge; he hasn’t even been charged with it. Tellingly, Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith has brought an aggressive case against the former president for conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding and more — but not for violating the federal law against insurrection,” the Post wrote.
The column asked under the precedent set by Colorado’s court, what would stop conservatives from trying to “bar his Democratic opponent because the opponent attended Black Lives Matter protests, claiming that those protests, some of them nominally in service of abolishing the police, qualify as insurrection.”
“To be clear, there is no moral equivalence between Black Lives Matter protesters and the Jan. 6 Capitol mob. But that is the point: the potential for abuse is ample,” it added.
Finally, the Post argued, “In the absence of clarity, a body of unelected officials should be reluctant to prevent the country’s citizens from choosing an elected official to lead them. The Supreme Court, hopefully, understands that.”
