Politics

Jan. 6 should’ve disqualified Trump. The Supreme Court disagreed.

Published

2 years ago

November 11, 2024

Jan. 6 should’ve disqualified Trump. The Supreme Court disagreed.

This article is the second in a five-part series called “Protecting the Election.” As former President Donald Trump and many of his allies refuse to concede his defeat in the 2020 election, this BLN Daily series brings election law and policy experts to explore the many threats to certifying election results at both the state and national levels.

With former President Donald Trump on the precipice of possibly becoming president again, let’s recall that he’s on the 2024 ballot thanks partly to the Supreme Court.

I’m not talking about the ruling granting him broad criminal immunity. Though the Roberts Court’s handling of that appeal helped Trump push off a trial in the federal election interference case — possibly forever, if he wins the election and deploys his reacquired presidential power to crush it.

I’m talking about another Jan. 6-related appeal from the last Supreme Court term, one that more directly positioned the Republican to take office again: Trump v. Anderson.

It was there that the justices reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to keep the former president from the ballot. The case was technically about one state during the primary process, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling effectively scrapped nationwide efforts to enforce the constitutional provision barring oath-breaking insurrectionists from office.

As a reminder, here’s what that post-Civil War provision, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, says:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

In a lengthy December decision, a majority of Colorado’s top court cited that language in agreeing that Trump “engaged in” the Jan. 6 insurrection after having sworn to support the Constitution as president.

“We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us,” the state court said Dec. 19, adding: “We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.” The public reaction included threats against the Colorado judges.

Maine’s secretary of state reached the same conclusion later that month (and was likewise threatened), raising the stakes for the high court’s inevitable intervention.

The justices seemingly saw a Trump-friendly ruling as inevitable, too. During the Feb. 8 hearing in Washington, Chief Justice John Roberts worried about the “plain consequences” of permitting states like Colorado to disqualify insurrectionist candidates. He mused:

In very quick order, I would expect … a goodly number of states will say, ‘Whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot,’ and others, for the Republican candidate, ‘You’re off the ballot,’ and it will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence.

That could be an understandable reaction from a random person not versed in the law or the facts. But this is the chief justice of the United States. For one thing, casual observers know that a handful of states basically do decide elections in our skewed Electoral College system. And more to the point, if any Democratic insurrectionists are blocked from the ballot, too, then that’s their problem. Even if Roberts’ stated concern was well-founded, it didn’t grapple with the law.

But the consequentialist view would prevail. It was just a matter of the court figuring out how to legally accomplish the practical goal of keeping Trump on the ballot. The decision came just ahead of the Super Tuesday primary voting day in March. It was an unsigned “per curiam” ruling, though it was actually authored by Roberts, according to a New York Times report that wasn’t confirmed by NBC News or BLN.

While the justices were unanimous on the bottom line that states couldn’t disqualify presidential candidates, the Times reported on the internal machinations:

four of the conservatives were pushing to go beyond that and rule that the Constitution’s prohibition would require congressional action to take effect. Such a decision would provide greater protection for Mr. Trump: To prevent him from taking office if he won re-election, Congress would have to vote to enforce the insurrectionist ban.

Roberts joined those four Republican appointees in the opinion that sparked two separate ones, both of which highlighted the lack of unanimity on the court. One of them came from the three Democratic appointees. Though styled a concurrence “in the judgment” (meaning on the bottom line), it reads at points more like a straight-up dissent, accusing the majority of needlessly resolving “novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner [Trump] from future controversy.”

The other separate opinion came from Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett. Adding her own bizarre thoughts to the affair, she agreed with the Democratic appointees that the majority went too far but nonetheless chided the trio for “stridency” in how it expressed disagreement.

Getting back to the substance of the matter, consider the view of conservative law professor William Baude. He previously clerked for Roberts and co-authored key scholarship before the ruling explaining why Trump is disqualified and, intriguingly, maintained in a post-ruling piece that Trump is still disqualified. He wrote in an op-ed after the decision that the Supreme Court:

swiftly overruled the [Colorado] decision without even confronting the question of whether Mr. Trump had engaged in an insurrection or was therefore disqualified from office. Instead it concocted an argument, not raised by any of the parties, that states specifically lack the power to consider this part of the Constitution in making ballot access decisions.

Trump v. Anderson’s holding lacked any real basis in text and history and also is at odds with the basic structure of the Electoral College, in which states have primary authority to decide how their slates of electors are chosen. The ruling’s real function was to let the court reverse the Colorado Supreme Court and avoid the political firestorm that might have ensued, without requiring the court to take sides on what happened on Jan. 6.

Indeed, the available evidence — the hearing, the decision, the investigative reporting — suggests the court started from the conclusion that Trump just had to stay on the ballot and then attempted to reason backward from there.

And no doubt, it’s probably an understatement that a “political firestorm” would’ve ensued had the court held Trump to the Constitution. Look no further than the threats against judges and election officials who dared to rule against him on this issue and others. Look no further than the Trump-backed violence of Jan. 6.

So, what about the “plain consequences,” to use the chief justice’s concerned phrase, of an oath-breaking insurrectionist potentially running the country again, this time knowing he’d have broad criminal immunity heading into a second term? That consequence apparently was not “daunting” enough to move this court.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in Donald Trump’s legal cases.

Politics

The top of Arizona’s GOP ticket is littered with 2020 election deniers

Published

7 hours ago

July 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

To make it out of a Republican primary in Arizona, there’s one key litmus test: believing the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump.

Election deniers who played prominent roles in efforts to overturn the 2020 results triumphed in statewide Republican primaries Tuesday, from Rep. Andy Biggs for governor to state Rep. Alexander Kolodin for secretary of state. State Senate President Warren Petersen was leading his primary for attorney general, though his race was not yet called as of early Wednesday morning.

Biggs, a staunch Trump ally who helped try and overturn the election on Jan. 6, 2021, was later subpoenaed in an Arizona probe. Kolodin represented a slate of fake electors, leading to discipline from the Arizona state bar, and filed lawsuits to try to overturn both the 2020 and 2022 elections. Petersen launched a taxpayer-funded audit into Maricopa County’s election system that eventually led to a subpoena.

Their victories show GOP primary voters continue to prefer candidates who have pushed false narratives about elections or worked to overturn them. But that can prove toxic in November — and Democrats plan to make their rivals pay for those positions in the fall.

“It’s one of those things that just won’t go away,” said former Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.). “In the Republican Party in Arizona, in the primary, carrying the Trump line on virtually everything — and that includes election denialism — is still something that benefits you.”

But in the general election, “it’s a stone around your neck,” Salmon said. “Among independents and moderate Republicans who vote in the general election, election denialism is not an asset.”

Each of the triumphant election deniers Tuesday centered election integrity in their 2026 campaigns. Biggs has been a prominent supporter of the SAVE America Act, the stalled election bill that Trump has pushed repeatedly. Kolodin has advocated for ending Arizona’s permanent early voting list and for stringent ID requirements. And Petersen has pledged to expand the attorney general office’s election integrity unit in order to investigate election results. Arizona was one of the most competitive — and most contested — states in the 2020 election. Fox News’ decision to declare then-candidate Joe Biden’s victory in the state on election night sent shockwaves through Trump’s orbit. It took then-Republican Gov. Doug Ducey several weeks to acknowledge Biden won.

The Grand Canyon State became ground zero for Trump’s effort to overturn the election. Trump and his allies pressured Arizona leaders, including then-House Speaker Rusty Bowers, to call the legislature back into session and recall the state’s slate of electors. A group of Republicans falsely posing as alternate electors were later charged with forgery, fraud and conspiracy, a case that is ongoing.

Even still, running as an election denier hasn’t been a successful strategy for the Arizona GOP once November rolls around. In 2022, Arizona Republicans nominated hardline election deniers up and down the ballot — Kari Lake for governor, Blake Masters for U.S. Senate, and Mark Finchem for secretary of state — and saw losses in each race, even as Republicans nationally enjoyed an otherwise strong year. And in 2024, Lake again lost, this time for U.S. Senate, even as Trump won the state by more than five percentage points.

“Biggs and Kolodin will be saddled with election denialism for the next three months,” said longtime Arizona GOP strategist Barrett Marson. “While Democrats would be wise to focus on affordability, certainly some of their talking points will focus on how these two are dangerous for democracy.”

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, who ran unopposed in the Democratic primary Tuesday and will face Biggs in November, served as secretary of state during the 2020 election. She has portrayed this year’s gubernatorial election as a contrast between confidence and conspiracy in the state’s election system.

“Arizona is one of seven swing states that will decide the presidential election,” Hobbs said during an MS NOW appearance Tuesday evening. “If Andy Biggs is governor, Arizona is the first swing state with an election denier in charge, and the time to stop that is not 2028. It is right now.”

It’s almost impossible to be a Republican officeholder without agreeing with the president on the 2020 election and the need to dramatically change election law.

“As long as Donald Trump, who has the bully pulpit and is the party leader … is talking about election integrity, it will be a top issue in GOP primaries,” said one Arizona Republican strategist, granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly.

“Election integrity measures are broadly popular, but the issue being front and center highlights divisions about Jan. 6th and wasn’t a winning general election issue in 2022,” the strategist continued. “Not sure that general election voters will care much about that in 2026 with such a focus on affordability issues. We are about to find out!”

Trump, for his part, has proven unwilling to move past the 2020 election even after winning a return to the White House in 2024. He has never acknowledged he lost that election, and in a primetime speech last Thursday, he announced his administration would declassify documents he alleged show Chinese interference in the 2020 race.

“Our elections were left vulnerable to being rigged and stolen, and the trust of the American people was lost,” Trump said Thursday. “This cannot be allowed to continue.”

Politics

Trump-backed Jay Feely wins GOP primary in Arizona’s battleground 1st District

Published

9 hours ago

July 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Former Arizona Cardinals kicker Jay Feely cruised to victory in Arizona’s 1st District on Tuesday, one of the nation’s most competitive battlegrounds.

Feely, a close ally of President Donald Trump, leveraged Trump’s endorsement to topple former state Rep. Joseph Chaplik.

He’ll face a steep challenge defeating the Democratic nominee in November: The 1st District, which spans the affluent suburbs north of Phoenix, is one of House Democrats’ top targets after Trump won it by just three points in 2024. Feely is looking to keep the seat under GOP control amid a midterm year that presents major headwinds for the party.

Politics

Rep. Andy Biggs wins GOP primary for Arizona governor

Published

9 hours ago

July 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump-endorsed Rep. Andy Biggs has won the GOP primary to face Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs in November, setting up a marquee governor’s race in one of America’s most competitive states.

Biggs, a former chair of the hardline House Freedom Caucus and a close ally of President Donald Trump, easily dealt with his only serious challenger, Rep. David Schweikert, on Tuesday. Before the primary results were official, he had already begun pivoting to the general election against Hobbs, who is seen as one of the most vulnerable Democratic governors this fall.

Republicans feel bullish about their odds of flipping the governorship, after Trump carried the state by five points in 2024. But even though Trump won last time, the state has gradually shifted to pure tossup territory over the past few years, electing Democrats to both Senate seats, as well as the attorney general and secretary of state’s offices.

Hobbs had already shifted her focus to Biggs as well. Her campaign has amassed a significant warchest for the race and has already started running ads. Biggs, given his lack of a significant primary challenge, has been able to hold onto more cash than his GOP rivals, but is still behind Hobbs.

The race will test whether Republicans, who are starting down a potentially bruising midterm cycle, can reclaim the top office of a state that has long been a place of success for the party.

During the Republican primary debate, Biggs spent more time talking about his working relationship with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly than he did flexing his endorsement from Trump or highlighting his House record, including his time atop the Freedom Caucus. Instead, he tried to refocus on his bipartisanship in Congress and his leadership in the state legislature.

“I know how to reach across the aisle,” Biggs said during the debate.

But he will still have to contend with many of his past stances, including his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election.

And Hobbs is already working to ensure voters know where Biggs stands on key issues as a longtime member of the House, including his anti-abortion positions and his role in 2020. Her campaign has repeatedly attacked him as “too extreme” for the state and has dubbed him “basement Biggs” for keeping a relatively low profile throughout the GOP primary.