Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump contra Anderson, the former president’s challenge to a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that ruled him ineligible to appear on the state’s presidential ballot. Common Cause filed an amicus brief in the case and released the following statement after the argument concluded.

Statement of Kathay Feng, Common Cause Vice President of Programs

En nuestra nación, nadie está por encima de la ley. Ni siquiera los expresidentes. Es revelador que el abogado de Donald Trump en la Corte Suprema no haya hecho ningún esfuerzo hoy por afirmar que su cliente no había fomentado una insurrección. No refutó que el 6 de enero Donald Trump ordenó a militantes fuertemente armados que fueran al Capitolio a “luchar como el demonio” para interrumpir la certificación de las elecciones presidenciales de 2020 como parte de su intento de negar la voluntad del pueblo y robar las elecciones.

Section 3 of the 14^El Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is clear. If a president breaks their oath to support the Constitution by fomenting insurrection, that person cannot hold office. But Trump’s lawyer argued to the Justices that “even if a candidate were an admitted insurrectionist”, that the 14^El Amendment still allows that candidate to run for, and even win, office. This defies the U.S. Constitution.

Trump’s lawyer twisted and turned to create what Justice Sotomayor speculated was a “gerrymandered rule” “designed to benefit only your client”, and thus that the 14^El Amendment ban on insurrectionists should not apply to the president.

If the president is allowed to stage an insurrection in order to overturn an election that he lost, without consequence, we run the risk of descending into a future of dictators seizing power through coups. We cannot allow a candidate who broke his Constitutional oath by refusing to support a peaceful transfer of power, and instead fomenting an attack on the Capitol and stoking violence against election administrators and judicial officials, to defy the people’s will and our rule of law. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will recognize this ongoing threat as it weighs the pivotal case.

To read the Common Cause amicus brief in the case, haga clic aquí.