“Election interference” is one of Donald Trump’s go-to cries about the myriad legal cases against him. At the trial in the 14th Amendment dispute over his ballot eligibility in Colorado, which kicked off Monday, one of his lawyers offered that political argument in the courtroom dressed up as a legal one — but it’s no more convincing in a more formal setting.
“This court should not interfere with that fundamental value, that rule of democracy,” Trump lawyer Scott Gessler said during his opening statement (at the 46:50 mark here).
“It’s the people who get to decide,” he added. “And this lawsuit seeks to cancel that principle.”
Putting aside the hypocrisy of that being said on behalf of someone who sought to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, the claim crumbles as a legal argument, too, when one realizes that it amounts to an argument against the Constitution itself.
That’s because the 14th Amendment, which is at the heart of this lawsuit, was a choice the people made through their representatives. The people could have decided to not ban insurrectionists from office, but they did. And Colorado law provides a mechanism for voters to raise election challenges like the one here.
So it’s the Trumpian critique of the legal action, rather than the action itself, that’s anti-democratic.
To be sure, the former president’s argument being weak on this score doesn’t mean he can’t or won’t prevail on the actual issue of his eligibility. Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace is hearing evidence on the matter this week, as courtrooms around the country grapple with the crucial issue ahead of 2024.
But if Wallace rules against Trump — and the issue could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, one way or another — that fact alone wouldn’t be illegally taking a choice away from the people if it’s based on the people’s Constitution.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Blog newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump cases and more.