Numerous mainstream media outlets have recently published pieces discussing the Colorado Supreme Court’s move to exclude former President Trump from the state’s primary ballot. They express concern, characterizing it as a boost to Trump’s controversial re-election campaign.
This viewpoint is echoed by major platforms like CNN, The L.A. Times, and NBC News, collectively suggesting that the court’s application of the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 to bar Trump could potentially elevate his political standing instead of diminishing it.
Mark Barabak, a columnist for The L.A. Times, labeled the ruling as an “early Christmas present” for Trump. He contends that while the decision may initially seem advantageous for Democrats and Trump’s opponents, it could ultimately have little impact in the long run. Barabak argues that perceived attacks on Trump, particularly from Democratic-appointed justices in Colorado, might actually enhance his appeal to the Republican base. He highlights Trump’s increased support in polls following his indictments last April.
Barabak noted in his writing, “Many Democrats are clinging to the hope of an easy resolution,” anticipating rulings like the one in Colorado or ongoing legal efforts in California and other states to keep Trump off the ballot and eliminate the threat of his return to the White House. He emphasizes that, assuming Trump becomes the GOP nominee, the Democrats should contest him through the electoral process rather than relying on legal maneuvers. Barabak asserts that a courtroom is an inappropriate venue to determine a presidential election, citing the lingering stain from the Supreme Court’s involvement in the 2000 election.
In a CNN op-ed, Damon Linker, a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Pennsylvania, criticized the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision as “breathtakingly foolish.” Despite characterizing Trump as an “aspiring authoritarian,” Linker viewed the use of the 14th Amendment to bar Trump from office as illusory. He argued that Trump, being a populist figure, could exploit such a ruling to reinforce his “us vs. them” narrative, a central element of his support.
“The time and place to declare Trump disqualified from holding high office was at the conclusion of his second impeachment trial, conducted by elected officials of both parties in the US Senate in the weeks following January 6,” Linker wrote. “Fearing the wrath of the voters, insufficient numbers of Republican senators were willing to convict him.”
“I think that was a terrible mistake, and one with potentially disastrous consequences. But that doesn’t mean a handful of judges in states dominated by Democrats have the legitimacy to reverse course now by forbidding Republican voters from casting ballots for their preferred candidate — especially before Trump has been found guilty in a court of law for acts committed in the days leading up to and on January 6,” he added.
Various contributors collaborated on an NBC News article reinforcing these perspectives on the Colorado decision, indicating that it could assist Trump in clinching the Republican nomination and potentially enhance his prospects in the ensuing November election.
The report emphasized the swift alignment of Republican officials with Trump post the ruling, even among those not endorsing his 2024 presidential candidacy. It also highlighted Trump’s utilization of the decision as a fundraising strategy and referenced viewpoints from Democratic figures such as David Axelrod and Chris Kofinis, who saw the ruling as inadvertently fortifying Trump’s position.
