By PRINCE ODETA

The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal regarding the lower court’s decision to include former President Donald Trump on the state’s primary ballot.

Oral arguments are scheduled for December 6 at 1 p.m. The court order states, “The Court accepts the cross-applications.”

On November 17, Judge Sarah Wallace of the Colorado 2nd District Court issued a 100-page opinion asserting that Trump had “engaged” in an “insurrection” on January 6, 2021.

However, she ruled that this did not warrant disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for U.S. presidents.

The order directed the Colorado Secretary of State, Jena Griswold, to place President Trump on the Republican primary ballot.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), representing six local voters, expressed their intention to appeal immediately.

On November 20, they filed an appeal, and President Trump’s team filed their petition the same day. On late November 21, the Colorado Supreme Court accepted the case.

President Trump is an intervenor in the case against Ms. Griswold, and his legal team played a leading role in the 17-hour trial in the district court.

The Colorado Supreme Court has set deadlines, requiring intervenors to submit their opening answer brief by November 27, petitioners to file any answer-reply brief by December 1, and President Trump to file a reply by December 4.

Constitutional Accountability Center and Constitutional Law Professor Mark A. Graber sought permission to file an amicus brief. The court has allowed amicus briefs, including Graber’s, to be filed by November 29.

The oral arguments will be restricted to one hour per side, with one attorney per side, unless a motion is filed to split the time with an additional attorney.

The case is on an expedited timeline, impacting primary ballots that must be certified by the state secretary’s office by January 5, 2024.

The petitioners are asking the Colorado Supreme Court to determine if the lower court correctly interpreted the 14th Amendment.

The appeal questions whether the district court’s ruling, stating that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Presidents engaging in insurrection, is reversible error.

The 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War, aimed at granting citizenship and equal rights to all born or naturalized in the United States. Section 3 was added to prevent former Confederates from returning to office without review.

It prohibits those engaged in “insurrections” or “rebellions” from holding office, but it doesn’t explicitly mention the President or Vice President.

Judge Wallace interpreted this omission to mean the section does not apply to the President.

CREW framed the ruling as a partial victory, emphasizing the historic designation of Jan. 6 as an “insurrection.” President Trump’s appeal argues that the judge made unsupported legal and factual findings, requesting a comprehensive review of constitutional, interpretive, and evidentiary issues.

The intervenors argue that Judge Wallace correctly interpreted Section 3 in ruling it doesn’t apply to presidents but made multiple serious jurisdictional and legal errors when deciding if an insurrection occurred.

During the lower court trial, they asserted that Congress, not a state court, has jurisdiction on this matter, citing a constitutional expert.

In closing arguments, they referenced rulings in Michigan and Minnesota where judges, citing jurisdictional questions, declined to hear insurrection cases.

Judge Wallace, while stating she wouldn’t revisit decisions, acknowledged the potential lack of state court jurisdiction.

The intervenors question if the district court’s opinion should be vacated due to jurisdictional issues, highlighting the court’s acknowledgment of lacking jurisdiction over applying Section Three to President Trump.

In the appeal, Trump’s team raised 11 issues, with a request for a 19,000-word limit, but the court granted 9,500 words for opening and answer briefs on Tuesday.

Several issues raised are jurisdictional, questioning if a state district court can handle this without Congress’s authority, if the Colorado Election Code grants such authority, and whether the matter is a political question beyond the court’s scope.

About two dozen similar cases, many initiated by John Anthony Castro, a Republican candidate, are ongoing across the nation, with the majority awaiting hearings.