Supreme Court Case Challenges Trump’s Eligibility to Run for President
In a historic move, the Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could determine whether former President Donald Trump is eligible to run for president again. The case, Trump v. Anderson, revolves around the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and its implications for those who engage in insurrection after taking an oath to support the Constitution. Norma Anderson, a 91-year-old Republican and former majority leader in the Colorado legislature, is one of the unlikely faces behind this challenge.
Norma Anderson has been a stalwart defender of the Constitution throughout her life. She keeps a copy of Colorado’s statutes in her home office and carries a pocket Constitution in her purse. She firmly believes that Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, when he attempted to overturn the election, disqualify him from holding office again. Anderson joined the lawsuit with the help of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), arguing that Trump’s engagement in insurrection should prevent him from appearing on Colorado’s primary ballot.
The case hinges on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was established after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates from returning to power. This provision states that those who engage in insurrection after taking an oath to support the Constitution cannot hold office. The lawsuit argues that Trump’s actions on January 6th fall under this definition of insurrection and therefore render him ineligible to run for president again.
While the case is considered a legal long shot, its outcome could have significant implications for the 2024 election. If the Supreme Court rules in Anderson’s favor, it would prevent Trump from continuing his campaign, shaking up American politics. However, regardless of the ruling, it is likely to leave a large portion of the polarized electorate dissatisfied.
The debate over whether Section 3 can block Trump from office does not neatly align with ideological lines. Some conservative scholars argue that Trump should be deemed ineligible, while some liberals believe the best course of action is to defeat him at the ballot box. Polls show that the country is divided on whether Trump should be disqualified, reflecting the deep divisions within the electorate.
Norma Anderson’s involvement in the lawsuit has surprised many, given her status as a Republican luminary and her long history in Colorado politics. During her time in the legislature, she was known as a conservative who could work with others and get things done. She was the first female majority leader in both chambers of the legislature and achieved legislative accomplishments such as creating the Colorado Transportation Department and rewriting the state’s school funding system.
Anderson’s decision to join the lawsuit stems from her concerns about the direction of the Republican Party under Trump. She voted for third-party candidates in 2016 and 2020, disenchanted with Trump’s candidacy. However, she rejoined the Republican Party in 2021, believing that she was the true Republican while others had strayed from its principles.
The case has not been without its challenges. The justices on Colorado’s top court faced threats after issuing their ruling, as did Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows after deciding to keep Trump off the ballot in her state. Despite the potential for harassment, Anderson remains undeterred, stating that she does not frighten easily.
Krista Kafer, a Denver Post columnist and another plaintiff in the case, joined because she believes that future presidents may incite violence if they are not barred from running after losing their reelection bids. She voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 but reluctantly voted for Trump in 2020, hoping he would be better than Joe Biden. However, she was horrified by Trump’s refusal to concede and perpetuation of lies about the election that fueled the attack on the Capitol.
The Supreme Court justices hearing the case include Brett M. Kavanaugh, Neil M. Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Clarence Thomas. While Thomas has faced calls to recuse himself due to his wife’s involvement in urging the overturning of the election, Kafer believes that the justices will be fair brokers who prioritize the Constitution and the country.
Regardless of the outcome of the case, Norma Anderson believes that bringing the lawsuit was worth it. She hopes that it will help people understand the seriousness of the events on January 6th and Trump’s role in them. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this historic case, the nation watches with bated breath, knowing that the decision will have far-reaching consequences for American politics.
