A Colorado judge ruled Friday night that former President Donald Trump must be allowed on next year's Republican primary ballot.
The 14th Amendment disqualification trial centered on Trump's actions before and during the U.S. Capitol riot and whether they violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Colloquially known as the “insurrectionist ban,” Section 3 states:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Mediaite's Michael Luciano has more:
State Judge Sarah Wallace issued a 102-page ruling on Friday night. The case stems from Trump's actions in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, which he falsely claimed was rigged against him. Trump infamously held a rally in Washington, D.C. on the morning of Jan. 6, 2021, when Congress was to certify the results. The then-president urged his supporters to march to the Capitol. Subsequently, some of them stormed the building in what became a deadly riot.
While the judge found that the Capitol riot does “easily satisfy” the definition of “insurrection” [p. 71], she noted the conspicuous absence of the two highest positions in the executive branch.
“To lump the Presidency in with any other civil or military office is odd indeed and very troubling to the Court because as Intervenors point out, Section Three explicitly lists all federal elected positions except the President and Vice President,” she wrote. “Under traditional rules of statutory construction, when a list includes specific positions but then fails to include others, courts assume the exclusion was intentional.” [p. 96]
Back in August, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig said Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is too vague to apply to Trump.
“The problem is that the 14th Amendment tells us nothing about how that decision gets made, nor does any case law or statute that's been passed,” Honig explained to CNN's Erica Hill. “Does Congress decide? Is it the Senate? Is it the House? Is it a majority? Is it two-thirds? Is it a court? Is it a jury? Is it a judge?”
READ NEXT: ‘I'm Working 3 Jobs.' Latino Voters Get Real Telling CNN Why They Prefer Trump
