Politics professor lays out 3 'factors that can mitigate anxieties' about Colorado court’s Trump ruling

21 December 2023

When the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump is disqualified from the state's GOP presidential primary ballot, Trump and his lawyers angrily vowed to appeal the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What the High Court will ultimately decide if it agrees to take the case remains to be seen. Trump's allies are arguing that it's undemocratic for the courts to play a role in the outcome of the 2024 presidential election —a subject that Princeton University politics professor Jan-Werner Müller tackles in an op-ed published by The Guardian on December 21.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled, 4-3, that Trump is ineligible for the state ballot based on Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment — which states that an "officer" who has engaged in "insurrection" is not eligible to run for public office.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Müller believes that the Colorado Supreme Court's decision was well-reasoned and addresses claims that the justices are trying to impede democracy.

"Three factors can mitigate anxieties about undemocratic measures to save democracy…. One is that, before a drastic decision like disqualification is taken, an individual has to exhibit a very consistent pattern of wanting to undermine democracy," Müller writes. "Check, for Trump. Second, there has to be some room for political judgment and prudence. Disqualification is not automatic and not for life; in theory, Congress could pass an amnesty for Trump in the name of democratic competition."

Müller continues, "Third, banning a whole party can rightly make citizens with particular political preferences feel that their voices are silenced; in this case, though, no one is removing the Republican Party. And, of course, two Trump epigones remain on the ballot."

Jan-Werner Müller's full op-ed for The Guardian is available at this link.

From Your Site Articles