On Friday, the leading House Republican campaign committee and the Republican National Committee submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court endorsing Donald Trump’s petition to be included in the 2024 ballot.
In a joint filing, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the Republican National Committee criticised the recent Colorado Supreme Court decision that removed the former president from the presidential primary ballots, calling it an undemocratic move.
“This case arises from a historically unprecedented attempt to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot,” the committees’ attorneys claimed in the brief. The Colorado Supreme Court, however, fell for the trap first. There was another way it could have gone.
A candidate or election would not be spared from the “chaos” that the rulings would cause, according to the brief. “Confidence in our electoral processes will take a nosedive once political opponents start going after each other and state courts start removing candidates from the ballot.” To back up their claim, they referenced efforts by Republicans in Texas and other states to remove Joe Biden from the presidential ticket due to their stance on immigration.
In the brief, Trump bolsters his case against the disqualification of the former president from running for president, which was upheld by a 4-3 vote in Colorado. The Colorado court ruled that his participation in the assault on the United States Capitol on January 6 constituted an insurrection, rendering him ineligible for reelection as president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
“The voice of the voters does not outweigh liberal judges and bureaucrats,” stated Ronna McDaniel, chair of the Republican National Committee. “We will not stop until this election interference is stopped,” they said, adding that their goal to remove Donald Trump from the presidential ballot was an assault on our electoral system.
Earlier this week, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and others bolstered Trump’s case by filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court.
The filings show how far Republicans have gone in using the rulings that disqualified their nominee to rally voters against Trump’s many legal issues. The Republican Party has attempted to portray Democrats as anti-democratic by citing the decisions.
The decision made by Colorado can be described as “election interference thinly veiled as a legal decision,” according to NRCC Chair Richard Hudson (R-N.C.). “The people decide their president — not anyone else,” he said, drawing a conclusion.
Coincidentally, Biden is likely to publicly argue that Trump aimed to undermine the will of the voters in 2020 by trying to stay in power after losing the presidential race. This effort occurs on the same day as his remarks. The coming third anniversary of the attack on January 6 is the perfect timing for his words.
Earlier this week, Trump’s legal team took legal action by appealing the ruling of a Colorado court. They also took legal action against Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows of Maine, who had taken a similar decision to exclude Trump on the ballot in Maine.
While the appeals process unfolds, Trump’s name continues to appear on the ballots in both states. It is largely anticipated that the Supreme Court will accept the case.
Rallying behind Trump’s legal action, the three major Republican committees are positioning themselves only ten days before the first nominating contest in Iowa. While Trump maintains a commanding lead in the polls, his opponents have accused the Republican National Committee (RNC), which has pledged to stay neutral in the GOP primary, of supporting the former president.
Republicans, including Trump’s main opponents, have come together in their widespread condemnation of the findings and support for Trump’s appeals, demonstrating the rulings’ unifying effect.
A representative for the RNC indicated that the organisation would offer the same defence to any Republican presidential contender. The RNC and the NRCC have also submitted briefs in Michigan and Minnesota, where they have previously been unsuccessful in bringing similar objections.