The Guardian view on Trump’s legal woes in
Colorado: he needs to be beaten politically
Editorial
A shock ruling by the state’s supreme court has barred
him from its presidential ballot
Thu 21 Dec 2023 19.42 CET
Like so
many troubles, the legal cases dogging Donald Trump come not singly but in
battalions. News of the bombshell ruling by the Colorado supreme court on
Tuesday – barring him from the state’s 2024 presidential ballot under the US
constitution’s insurrection clause – soon jostled for space with the latest
wrangles over his indictment by the special counsel Jack Smith for attempting
to overturn the last election.
Until this
year, no president or former president had ever been indicted. Mr Trump now
faces 91 felony counts. But he also faces multiple cases directly challenging
his candidacy under section 3 of the 14th amendment, which bars
insurrectionists from holding office. The Colorado challenge is not only the
first to be upheld against Mr Trump, after attempts in other states failed, but
it is the first time that the clause has been used against a presidential
candidate since its inception in the wake of the civil war. While Mr Trump does
not need Colorado, a Democratic state, the case may encourage those bringing
suits elsewhere.
His lawyers
are appealing to the US supreme court – heavily conservative-dominated and
containing three Trump-appointed justices. Matters in dispute include whether
the clause applies to the presidency, whether the events of January 6 amounted
to an insurrection and whether Mr Trump himself committed insurrection. Charges
of insurrection are rare and hard to prove; those who stormed the Capitol have
been tried for other offences. Mr Smith has not attempted to bring such a
charge as part of his case. While Mr Trump was accused of incitement to
insurrection in his second impeachment trial, he was acquitted when the vote to
impeach fell short of the required two-thirds majority. He was not charged with
insurrection itself.
The
watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington – which
brought the Colorado suit on behalf of Republican and independent voters – is
correct to point out that the constitution bars those who attack democracy from
serving in government. That is hardly an unreasonable standard. Though voters
should hardly need reminding, the last three years have been turbulent, and the
case does also put the events of January 6, and by extension Mr Trump’s disdain
for the will of the people, back into the spotlight. A man who may very well
return to the presidency weaponised it against democracy itself.
However,
the case comes at a significant price. Some warn that the clause could be much
more widely invoked against other candidates in future. But the most immediate
consequence is that it once again fires up the former president’s base. Mr
Trump is portraying it as another illegitimate act of persecution, part of the
fictional witch-hunt against him – because he dares to speak for his
supporters. Colorado’s supreme court justices were all appointed by Democrat
governors (though the chief justice is a Republican and three of the other six
registered as unaffiliated). A fundraising email from his campaign falsely and
hypocritically declared: “This is how dictatorships are born.”
Victory in
November’s polls may not be enough to return Joe Biden to the White House: Mr
Trump will fight defeat by any and every means. His backers will seek to bend
the law to their will. Yet ultimately, he is a political phenomenon, and truly
vanquishing him will require convincing sufficient voters, not a handful of
justices. He must be beaten at the ballot box again.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário