https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-v-anderson-supreme-court-opinion-9-0-colorado-ballot-presidential-election-7486b815?mod=opinion_lead_pos1
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision Monday restoring Donald Trump on Colorado’s presidential ballot is no surprise after the oral argument in Trump v. Anderson last month. But it’s still a landmark, and a victory for the Constitution and democracy over partisan lawfare.
The Justices overturned a 4-3 decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that invoked Section 3 of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment, which bars candidates from holding federal or state office if they have engaged in an “insurrection or rebellion.” An Illinois state judge and the Maine secretary of state have also ruled Mr. Trump ineligible, though other states have differed.
The High Court cleared up the confusion in robust fashion in an unsigned per curiam opinion that went to the heart of federal versus state power in determining the qualifications for candidates. Letting states enforce Section 3, the Court explains, would create a “patchwork” of electoral policies that would “‘sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States’ as a whole.”
“Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings,” the Court adds. “Some States might allow a Section 3 challenge to succeed based on a preponderance of the evidence, while others might require a heightened showing.”
This peril is particularly grave for the Presidency, which “represent[s] all the voters in the Nation,” the Court stresses. States could remove candidates at different times, which “could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties and States.”
Imagine the uproar that would ensue if a judge or election official in a swing state disqualified Mr. Trump after he won the election. “Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos—arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration,” the Court writes.