Colorado's legal battle over whether to include an insurrectionist on the presidential primary ballot took center stage at the Supreme Court, with the state's Secretary of State arguing that the decision to disqualify the candidate was a valid exercise of the state's authority under the Electors Clause.
The Secretary of State emphasized that Colorado's legislature had directed its courts to resolve any challenges to the listing of a candidate on the primary ballot before voters cast their votes. This, according to the Secretary of State, was in line with the state's historical process of handling ballot challenges for over a century. The Colorado courts, in this case, ensured an efficient and capable procedure to address the challenge.
The justices questioned the nature of a qualified candidate and the basis for determining eligibility. While there is no express provision defining a qualified candidate, the Colorado Supreme Court relied on the need to be qualified and the provision requiring comparable write-in candidates to be qualified in their interpretation of the law.
When asked about the Secretary of State's role in determining disqualification, it was explained that if the Secretary received objective and knowable information, they could act on it and inform the candidate. However, in this particular case, the challenge was brought before the candidate's paperwork was submitted, and thus the Secretary did not make the determination.
The Secretary acknowledged that different states have varying processes and levels of judicial review for such determinations. However, it was argued that as long as a state's actions are in accordance with Article II of the Constitution, which grants states broad authority over presidential elections, including determining qualifications, they would be constitutional.
The justices further questioned the potential impact of such disqualifications and the varying state processes on candidates. While concerns were raised about potential retaliation by states, the Secretary expressed confidence in the existing systems, such as electoral rules, administrators, and courts, to handle such situations appropriately.
The arguments presented by the Secretary of State highlighted the state's authority to enforce disqualifications and determine the eligibility of candidates for the presidential primary ballot. The Supreme Court now has the task of reviewing the case and providing guidance on the legal principles at play. The outcome of this case will have implications not only for Colorado but for states across the nation in terms of their ability to set regulations for presidential elections and handle challenges to candidate eligibility.
