Court correctly leaves Trump’s fate to voters

Donald Trump’s followers immediately lauded the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision Monday to allow the former president to remain on the ballot in Colorado as a victory for democracy.

That reaction is tinged with hypocrisy given that Trump, through his relentless efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his persistent, unfounded allegations of voter fraud, has done more to damage American democracy than any political leader this country has produced in the past 150 years.

With that in mind, the court’s verdict is hardly a cause for celebration. At the same time, we believe the court made the right decision, both for legal and political reasons.

Last September, six Colorado voters filed suit to keep Trump off their state ballot. Their case was rooted in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a post-civil War provision designed to disqualify Confederate secessionists from serving in political office.

Section 3 states that no person shall “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state,” if, after having taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution, they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against their country or state.

By any reasonable calculus, Trump’s actions following his defeat in the 2020 presidential election should be disqualifying.

He propagated the lie that the election had been stolen from him. He prodded county election officials to block vote certifications. He tried to bully the Georgia secretary of state into altering that state’s results for him.

Most damningly, he organized and incited a mob to march on the U.S. Capitol and intimidate members of Congress out of certifying the election of Joe Biden.

Nonetheless, it would be deeply problematic for states to delete federal candidates from the ballot.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court ignored the issue of whether Trump was guilty of engaging in insurrection. Instead, the justices focused on how Section 3 should be applied.

The court persuasively argued that allowing states to handle Section 3 enforcement for federal offices would create a “chaotic state-by-state patchwork,” disrupting the carrying out of presidential elections.

The court concluded that states can disqualify candidates for state office, but federal candidates can only be barred at the federal level.

The court could — and should — have stopped there. Unfortunately, a five-member majority also took the unnecessary step of asserting that Section 3 enforcement must come from congressional legislation.

This narrow reading of the Constitution received pushback from the court’s three progressives and Trump-appointed conservative Amy Coney Barrett, who considered it an example of judicial overreach. This could lead to confusion in the future when it comes to enforcing Section 3.

However, the big takeaway now is that individual states can’t deny Trump a place on the ballot this year.

In addition to the issue of constitutional interpretation, there is a practical and political reason why none of us — regardless of our partisan leanings — should want Trump barred from the ballot.

Trump’s political movement derives much of its fuel from the way he casts himself as a martyr who is persecuted by the “Deep State.” Restricting his opportunity to compete in this year’s election would only intensify that feeling.

It would play into his narrative that he is beloved by the masses but the system is stacked against him. It would also convince a growing number of his followers that elections are rigged, democracy is worthless and violence is their only recourse.

Ultimately, it is the voters — not the judges — of the United States who should disqualify Trump this year. That rejection must happen at the ballot box, not in a courtroom.

For states to make decisions about federal ballots would fuel mayhem