Plaintiffs in several cases have filed appeals to keep former President Donald Trump off the ballot in states such as Colorado and Minnesota. The decision came after multiple courts rejected their efforts arguing that the former president was disqualified due to a clause in the 14th Amendment.
in particular, plaintiffs involved in Colorado and Michigan cases are appealing court decisions that kept Trump on the ballot.
In the Colorado case, the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington appealed their loss Monday, hoping to send the case to the state’s supreme court.
The organization’s president said that the group had always planned to argue before the Colorado Supreme Court and had prepared “for that from the beginning.”
The official said that the group was “ready to take this case as far as necessary to ensure that Donald Trump is removed from the ballot.”
Separately, following a loss in a Michigan court, advocates are requesting that the state’s supreme court issue a decision. The litigants hope to have a decision by Dec. 1. The judge in the earlier case determined that Trump could not be removed from the Republican Party’s 2024 ballot.
Colorado Supreme Court to hear Trump 14th Amendment appeal https://t.co/GGs2IC4GAn
— Bo Snerdley (@BoSnerdley) November 22, 2023
The news comes as multiple suits arguing that Trump was ineligible for the ballot were rejected. In the Minnesota case, the state’s supreme court ruled unanimously in favor of the former president.
In Colorado, a judge appointed by Gov. Jared Polis (D) determined that the amendment’s ‘Insurrection Clause’ did not apply to Trump. The litigants hoped to prove that Trump’s actions regarding the Jan. 6, 2021 protests would disqualify him from holding federal office again.
“The court holds there is scant direct evidence regarding whether the presidency is one of the positions subject to disqualification,” Judge Sarah Wallace wrote.
A similar effort to remove Trump in New Hampshire was also rejected by state officials.
Trump’s attorneys argued that the cases attempting to remove his name from consideration were unconstitutional.