Supreme Court weighs Trump 2024 election ballot removal: Highlights

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday signaled deep skepticism that Colorado had the power to remove former President Donald Trump from the Republican primary ballot because of his actions trying to overturn the 2020 election results.

A majority of the justices appeared during the two-hour argument to think that states do not have a role in deciding whether a presidential candidate can be barred from running under a provision of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment that bars people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

Justices raised concerns about states reaching different conclusions on whether a candidate could run and several indicated that only Congress could enforce the provision at issue.

Read the full story here.

Speaking to reporters in front of his Mar-a-Lago resort, Trump erroneously claimed that the Jan. 6 attack was “caused by” Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who served as House speaker at the time.

Trump then falsely claimed that there were no guns used by Capitol rioters that day, except for the fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt by law enforcement during the attack.

“If it was an insurrection, which there were no guns, no anything except for the fact that they shot Ashli Babbitt. Somebody from police force shot Ashli Babbitt — so unnecessary, so sad, so horrible,” he said. “But there were no guns, there were no anything.”

Prosecutors have said that a number of Jan. 6 rioters had a gun on Jan. 6. Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson said that Trump acknowledged on the day of the attack that some of his supporters were armed.

“I don’t f---ing care that they have weapons,” he said, according to Hutchinson. “They’re not here to hurt me.”

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold told MSNBC that Trump's post-arguments remarks were "very disturbing."

"We are feet away from the U.S. Capitol, where congresspeople ran for their lives," she said.

Asked about the justices' skepticism, Griswold said it would be "a grave day for our country" if the Supreme Court allows Trump to remain on the ballot.

Murray and the plaintiffs in the case, including 91-year-old Norma Anderson, held a news conference after oral arguments outside of the court, where Murray told reporters, "We're confident that the Supreme Court will apply Section 3 as written."

Anderson added that Trump is unique and there hasn't been an insurrection in over a century.

"This is very personal to me. I’ve lived a hell of a long time and I’ve gone through a lot of presidents and this is the first one that’s tried to destroy the Constitution," she said.

Trump turned attention to a different case: the appeals court ruling on Tuesday that said he doesn't have presidential immunity from prosecution over Jan. 6. Trump has argued that his efforts to overturn the 2020 election fell under his official presidential duties, but the courts have ruled otherwise.

"If a president doesn't have immunity, he really doesn't have a presidency," he said. "If you don't have immunity, you can be blackmailed," he added.

He has said previously that presidents must have broad immunity, even things that "cross the line."

In a news conference at Mar-a-Lago, Trump addressed the Supreme Court arguments this morning about his eligibility to appear on the Colorado ballot. The former president called the hearing "a beautiful process" but said the 14th Amendment challenge to his candidacy was "totally illegal."

Trump pinned the blame for his legal troubles on President Biden, saying that "every one of these cases comes out of the White House," but he acknowledged that the decision in the case would be "up to the Supreme Court."

The court has adjourned in Trump v. Anderson.

Stevenson argued that states are allowed to decide who is an insurrectionist and whether they can be barred from the ballot.

“We can have a very easy case under the 14th Amendment with an avowed insurrectionist, who, you know, came in and wrote on his paperwork, ‘I engaged an insurrection in violation of the 14th Amendment,’ and it would be an open-and-shut case as to whether or not that person would meet the qualifications to be on the Colorado ballot,” she said.

“My positions are based on the assumption that under the 14th Amendment, the states have the power to enforce Section 3,” Stevenson added.

Alito then pushed back, asking whether there could be a “cascading effect” and patchwork of different candidates in different states, which Stevenson added is a feature of the U.S.

“Under Article 2, there is a huge amount of disparity and candidates that end up on the ballot on different, different states in every election. … And that’s just a, that’s a feature of our process. It’s not a bug,” she said.

Murray says that their case "illustrates the danger of refusing to apply Section 3 as written."

"The reason we're here is [Trump tried] to disenfranchise 80 million Americans who voted against him, and the Constitution doesn't require that you be given another chance," he said.

Shannon Stevenson, the solicitor general of Colorado, will be given 10 minutes to speak on behalf of her client, Jena Griswold, Colorado's secretary of state.

Stevenson was appointed to the role last spring after 20 years in private practice. A state solicitor general is the lawyer for a state in criminal and civil appeals, including constitutional issues. In this case, she will argue that Colorado has the authority to ban a candidate from the ballot.

She clerked for Judge David Ebel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after she graduated from Duke Law School, according to the Colorado attorney general's website.

Jackson seemed increasingly frustrated with Murray as she pressed him on the absence of the office of president from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the core of this case. She argued that given the clear "ambiguity" that perhaps the court should err "on the side of democracy."

In an exchange with Kavanaugh, Murray pushed back on the notion that convicting insurrectionists is the only way to bar them from holding future elected office.

“If the concern you have, which I understand is that insurrectionists should not be able to hold federal office, there is a tool to ensure that that does not happen, namely federal prosecution of insurrectionists,” Kavanaugh said.

He added, “And if convicted, Congress made clear you are automatically barred from holding a federal office.”

While Murray agreed, he added that insurrectionists are not always convicted, and that’s why there should be other avenues to bar them from elected office.

“I would just make the point that the framers of Section 3 clearly understood that criminal prosecutions weren’t sufficient because oftentimes insurrectionists go unpunished, as was the case in the Civil War, and that the least we can do is impose a civil disqualification penalty,” he told Kavanaugh.

Murray argues that this case isn't about Colorado deciding who can be on the ballot for president in all 50 states. He argued that instead it's about different states having different procedures.

"Some states may allow insurrectionists to be on the ballot," he said. "They may say we’re not looking past the papers. We’re not going to look into federal constitutional questions. It’s the sort of — even in this election cycle. There are candidates who are on the ballot in some states, even though they’re not natural-born citizens ... and that’s just a function of states' power to enforce, to preserve their own electors and avoid disenfranchisement of their own citizens."

Jackson turned back to history, asking Murray about the Framers' intention when drafting Section 3.

"I guess my question is why the Framers would have designed a system that would, could result in interim dis-uniformity in this way, where we have elections pending and different states suddenly saying, 'You are eligible, you're not.'"

Murray answered that the main priority was to prohibit insurrectionists from taking office and that the intent wasn't for Congress to be able to invalidate Section 3 with legislation.

"What they were concerned most about was ensuring that insurrectionists and rebels don't hold office. And so once one understands the sort of imperative that they had to ensure that oath breakers wouldn't take office, it would be a little bit odd to say that states can't enforce it, that only the federal government can enforce it," Murray told Jackson.

"Federalism creates redundancy," he added.

Justice Alito snapped at Murray during a back-and-forth over the consequences of removing Trump from the ballot in Colorado.

"You’re not answering my question," he said. "It's not helpful when you do that."

"I’m not getting a whole lot of help from you about this will be an unmanageable situation," he added.

Murray concluded, "The facts are indisputable about what Trump said and tweeted. That’s the core of our case."

Alito asked Murray a hypothetical in which a president came to a diplomatic agreement with a country that considered itself an enemy of the United States and gave "or released" it funds, and whether that would constitute a disqualifying crime.

This is likely a not-so-veiled dig at President Biden, who released funds to Iran as part of a diplomatic deal.

Murray argued that diplomacy and foreign relations were not a crime.

Justice Gorsuch scolded Jason Murray, the plaintiffs' lawyer, after he tried to change a hypothetical situation that the justice was asking about.

"I'm not gonna say it again, put it aside," Gorsuch said to Murray. "I think Justice Alito is asking a very different question, a more pointed one, a more difficult one for you, I understand, but I think it deserves an answer."

"Would anything compel a lower official to obey an order from, in your view, the former president?" Gorsuch asked.

Murray responded, "I'm imagining a situation where, for example, a former president was ... a president was elected and they were 25. And they were ineligible."

"No, no, no, no," Gorsuch interjected. "Please don't change the hypothetical. OK. Please don't change the hypothetical. I know I like doing it too. But please don't do it."

Alito questioned Murray on the potential scenario of an election coming down to one state and a candidate being blocked from victory despite receiving the majority of votes.

The Supreme Court famously decided the 2000 election, ruling that Bush had won the decisive state of Florida despite Gore receiving more votes.

Murray, the attorney for Colorado voters, argued that Section 3 “has been dormant for 150 years because we haven’t seen anything like Jan. 6 since Reconstruction. Insurrection against the Constitution is something extraordinary.”

Chief Justice Roberts pushed back, telling Murray, “It seems to be you’re avoiding the question, which is other states may have different views about what constitutes insurrection.” If different states have different ways of defining an insurrection, inevitably, “we’d have to develop rules for what constitutes an insurrection,” he added. 

The chief justice predicted that if Colorado's position is upheld, and Trump is removed from the ballot, "surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side, and some of those will succeed."

"Some of them will have different standards of proof. Some of them will have different rules about evidence," he said.

He continued, "In very quick order, I would expect, although my predictions have never been correct, I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you're off the ballot, and others for the Republican candidate, you're off the ballot."

If that were to happen, the presidential election would be decided by "just a handful of states," Roberts suggested. "That's a pretty daunting consequence," he said.

Justice Gorsuch questioned Murray, his former law clerk, on the wording of Section 3 being specific to restrictions on people holding office, not people running for it.

Murray replied that a distinction between holding and running for office is important for issues like age and residence, which can change between candidacy and election, whereas having committed insurrection doesn't.

In their questions, most of the justices seem skeptical that the state has the power to ban someone from holding federal office.

Even Kagan, who was skeptical of much of the Trump team's arguments, didn’t seem to buy it as a state power.

Justice Kavanaugh zeroed in on the insurrection part of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and wondered who gets to determine who engaged in it.

"When you look at Section 3, the term insurrection jumps out and the question is, the questions are: What does that mean? How do you define it? Who decides, who decides whether someone is engaged in it? What processes, as Justice Barrett alluded to, what processes are appropriate for figuring out whether someone did engage in that?" Kavanaugh asked.

In response, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Jason Murray, said, "Well, certainly Justice Kavanaugh, there has to be some process for determining those questions. And then the question becomes, does anything in the 14th Amendment say that only Congress can create that process and Section 5 very clearly is not an exclusive provision. It says Congress shall have power."

As the justices press Murray, Kagan asks, "I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States."

"In other words, you know, this question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again, is just — it, it sounds awfully national to me," Kagan added.

Later, Barrett agreed, telling Murray, "I mean, really, it's going to have, as Justice Kagan said, the effect of Colorado deciding."

When asked about the definition of insurrection, Mitchell argued that Trump did not engage in acts that would fall under the term. "It did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the government," he said.

But he did acknowledge that the day involved violence, calling it a riot. "This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful criminal violence, all those things, but did not qualify as insurrection as that term is used in Section 3."

Justice Thomas points out a hole in the history of Section 3 — there are incredibly few cases where states have disqualified federal candidates, as Colorado seeks to do here.

"Do you have contemporaneous examples?" Thomas asked Murray, the attorney for Colorado's voters.

"And by contemporaneous I mean, shortly after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, where the states disqualified national candidates — not its own candidates — but national candidates," Thomas added.

"I didn’t see any evidence that the presidency was top of mind for the framers when they were drafting Section 3 because they were actually dealing with a different issue," Jackson said, adding, "The pressing concern, at least as I see the historical record, was actually what was going on at lower levels of the government, the possible infiltration and embedding of insurrectionists into the state government apparatus."

Jackson's statement seemed sympathetic to Trump, arguing that perhaps not including the presidency in Section 3 was intentional.

"I just don't understand why you're giving that argument up," Jackson told Mitchell.

Jason Murray, the lawyer representing the Colorado plaintiffs in the case, has begun his argument before the court.

When pressed on whether he objected to the procedures used by Colorado in its decision, Mitchell said that "winning on due process doesn't really do as much" for his client.

A decision based on procedural issues in Colorado wouldn't necessarily apply to the challenges Trump faces to ballot access in other states. A decision in Trump's favor based on the constitutional arguments would effectively end them.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to agree with Mitchell's argument that Congress would need to pass a law to enforce Section 3.

"Section 3 refers to insurrection and raises questions about who decides what processes are to be used. That’s ratified in 1868. The next year, Chief Justice Chase opines that states do not have the authority, that only Congress has the authority to enforce that," Kavanaugh said.

He continued: "That could be evidence, as you say, of the original public meaning, at least some evidence. It’s a precedent, although not binding. But your point then is it’s reinforced because Congress itself relies on that precedent in the Enforcement Act of 1870 and forms the backdrop against which Congress does legislate."

Mitchell agreed with Kavanaugh's understanding of the argument, saying, "Congress relied on Griffin’s case; it provided the backdrop against which they legislated, which is why we should read these extant enforcement mechanisms. And right now, the only one left is the federal insurrection statute 2383 as exclusive of state court remedies."

On Tuesday, an appeals court ruled that Trump does not have presidential immunity from prosecution in his election interference case in Washington, D.C. — meaning that he can't argue that his actions on Jan. 6 were related to his official duties as president.

Attorney Jonathan Mitchell says he stands by the stance that Trump should be immune, despite that ruling.

"Our client is arguing that he has presidential immunity. So we would not concede that he can be prosecuted for what he did on Jan. 6," Marshall said.

Another quirk of a former president running for office: Justices appointed by Trump are now tasked with deciding whether or not he can be president again.

Mitchell argues that Section 3 doesn’t apply to presidents who haven’t held other offices before.

"I don't think there is a good rationale," for this, Mitchell argues, but says that sometimes compromise legislation leads to weird rules.

This was the text that was settled upon, and "it does seem odd that President Trump would fall through the cracks in a sense,” Mitchell added.

Trump is one of five presidents to have never been sworn into another elected office (or six if you count Washington.) He is also the only president to have never sworn either an oath of military service or for any lower office.

The justices are now pressing Mitchell to define the difference between an “officer” of the United States and an “office” of the United States.

Gorsuch asks where it says in the drafting of the Constitution or other original documents where this distinction is raised.

Essentially, he's asking Mitchell to give the originalists a lifeline (which they never need).

In response to a question posed by Kagan, Mitchell expanded on his argument that the fact that Congress can and has seated those who have participated in insurrection or rebellion (specifically the Civil War) points to some leeway in interpretations of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

He was pushed on this argument by Jackson, who argued that this did not preclude a state from disqualifying a candidate.

As the justices examined other reasons to disqualify candidates from the ballot, such as disqualifying candidates who have already served two terms or disqualifying candidates who were not born in the U.S., Jackson jumped in to ask Trump’s attorney: “Does it have something to do with the fact that the particular circumstance that you’re talking about can change? Is that what you mean?

"I’m trying to understand the distinction between the provision in the Constitution that relates to disqualification on the basis of insurrection behavior and these other provisions that Justice Sotomayor points out," she added. "They all seem to me to be extant constitutional requirements, but you’re drawing a distinction.”

“Right, I’m drawing a distinction because some of them are categorical,” Trump’s lawyer responded.

“What do you mean by categorical? Whether or not you are an insurrectionist is or is not categorical?” Jackson pressed.

“It is not categorical,” Mitchell said.

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson began to move on to a separate topic, Kagan quipped, “Will there be an opportunity to do the officer stuff?" Her question prompted resounding laughter in the courtroom.

Sotomayor pressed Mitchell on other areas of the Constitution that would disqualify someone from office, such as age or citizenship.

She’s trying to lock Mitchell into rejecting the idea Trump would seek a third term and then say the state can’t bar him from doing so.

In a question, Justice Samuel Alito seemed to accept parts of Trump's argument that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment isn't applicable to this scenario.

“Section 3 refers to the holding of office, not running for office. And so, if a state or Congress were to go further and say that, ‘You can’t run for the office. You can’t compete in a primary,’ wouldn’t that be adding an additional qualification for serving for president? You must have been free from this disqualification at an earlier point in time than Section 3 specifies,” Alito said.

Justice Elena Kagan said to Trump's lawyer that his argument "sounds like your reply brief where it sounds like you’re not making a constitutional argument."

"You’re really making a statutory pre-emption argument," she said. "You’re not saying that the Constitution gives you this rule."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett chimed in after Mitchell responded, saying, "It kind of seems to me that what Justice Kagan is getting at is, why don’t you have an argument that the Constitution, of its own force, that Section 3, of its own force, pre-empts the state’s ability not necessarily, I think not to enforce Section 3 against its own officers, but against federal officers?"

The judges are currently discussing the case known as Griffin's case, decided not in the Supreme Court but in the U.S. Circuit Court for Virginia in 1869.

In the case, Ceasar Griffin, who had been convicted of attempted murder, sued to have his sentence overturned because he argued that the judge should not have been able to hold office because he had previously supported the Confederacy.

The court disagreed, and Supreme Court Justice Salmon Chase — who wasn't acting as a member of the Supreme Court at the time — held that enforcement of Section 3, which bans those who participated in insurrection from office, should be left to Congress.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed skepticism of the Trump team's argument.

“History proves a lot to me,” she said, in a testy exchange with Trump's lawyer. She added, “There’s a whole lot of examples on states relying on Section 3 to disqualify insurrectionists for state offices and you’re basically telling us that you want us to go two steps further, maybe three, you want us to say that self-execution doesn’t mean what it generally means. You want us now to say it means that Congress must permit states or require states to stop insurrectionists from taking state office and so this is a complete pre-emption that is very rare, isn’t it?” 

Mitchell also said that Trump shouldn't be barred from the Colorado election ballot because "Section 3 cannot be used to exclude a presidential candidate from the ballot" even if that candidate is disqualified from serving as president using the same provision.

He said Congress can "lift that disability after the candidate is elected, but before he takes office."

"A state cannot exclude any candidate for federal office from the ballot on account of Section 3, and any state that does so is violating the holding of term limits by altering the Constitution's qualifications for federal office," he argued.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who faced calls to recuse himself from this case because of his wife Ginni Thomas' involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has the first question to Trump's lawyers.

"You didn't spend much time on your argument with respect to whether or not Section 3 is self-executing?" Thomas asked, adding, "Your argument is that it's not self-executing, but then in that case what would the role of the state be? Or is it entirely up to Congress to implement the disqualification in Section 3?"

Mitchell began his argument by stating that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Trump because he wasn't an "officer" of the U.S. when he served as president.

He said that officers are only appointed officials and not those who are elected by voters.

"Officer of the United States refers only to appointed officials and it does not encompass elected individuals such as the president or members of Congress," Mitchell said.

Oral arguments have begun in the case.

The Supreme Court will first release opinions in other cases before oral arguments begin in the Trump case.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., yesterday became one of the highest-ranking Democrats this year to call on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from Trump's ballot eligibility case.

"I’m calling for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself in the 14th Amendment case determining if Donald Trump is ineligible for the 2024 ballot," Durbin wrote on X. "Given questions surrounding his wife’s involvement, Justice Thomas should recuse himself so there’s no question of bias."

The call echoes a similar demand last month from a group of House Democrats led by Hank Johnson of Georgia, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee’s courts subcommittee, who issued a letter to Thomas asking for his recusal and citing his wife, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, and her "substantial involvement in the events leading up to the January 6 insurrection."

Thomas has given no indication that he plans to step aside.

With the Supreme Court in today’s political spotlight, the latest NBC News poll finds the overall public opinion of the court at its lowest point ever in the poll’s history — at a net rating of 28% positive, 40% negative among registered voters (minus 12 points).

That’s down from the Supreme Court’s minus-9 net rating in June 2023 (31% positive, 40% negative), and its plus-25 rating in 2021 (44% positive, 19% negative). 

The erosion in public opinion has come from Democrats and also independents after the court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Jason Miller, who serves as a senior adviser to Trump, was spotted entering the Supreme Court before oral arguments began.

In the wake of the Colorado Supreme Court’s December decision to remove Trump from the ballot, Republicans from several states have also floated plans to remove President Joe Biden from the ballot.

In early January, after the U.S. Supreme Court took up this case, Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft said in a post on social media, “While I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this, if not, Secretaries of State will step in & ensure the new legal standard for @realDonaldTrump applies equally to @JoeBiden!”

The last time Congress used Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was in 1919, when it refused to seat a socialist congressman who was accused of aiding Germany in World War I, according to the Congressional Research Service.

According to a 2020 paper on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Victor Berger of Wisconsin was elected to the 66th Congress while he was under indictment for violating the Espionage Act. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison, a sentence he appealed. While the appeal was pending, the speaker of the House refused to administer the oath of office to Berger. A House special committee eventually voted to disqualify Berger from taking office.

Representing Norma Anderson, along with other Colorado Republican voters, is Murray. Though it is his first time arguing at the Supreme Court, he is familiar with the institution. He clerked for Neil Gorsuch when he was a district court judge.

Despite being a self-proclaimed liberal, Murray wrote an op-ed advocating for Gorsuch when he was nominated to the Supreme Court, saying "he puts law before politics." He also took a shot at Trump, calling him "a divisive (even dangerous) president." On the other end of the ideological spectrum, he clerked for Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee.

After his clerkships, he worked in corporate litigation before he moved to his current role as a partner at Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray LLC, a small firm in Denver that specializes in public interest litigation and aims to "hold the powerful to account."

Jason Murray, the lead attorney for Colorado voters, walks past anti-Trump demonstrators outside the Supreme Court today. Roberto Schmidt / AFP - Getty Images

Speaking for Trump at today's hearing is Mitchell, a Texas-based lawyer whose background includes a Supreme Court clerkship and tenure as the Texas solicitor general.

After he graduated from the University of Chicago Law School, he clerked for a prominent conservative judge, J. Michael Luttig of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Luttig, now retired, has filed an amicus brief in this case arguing that Trump should be disqualified from the ballot. Mitchell later clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

After a role at the Justice Department and several teaching stints, Mitchell was appointed as the Texas solicitor general. In that role, he argued for the state in many cases, including advocating for HB2, a Texas law regulating abortion, which many advocates saw as overly restrictive.

The words “chaos and bedlam” are now synonymous with Jan. 6, 2021. That is also what Trump’s lawyers argue will ensue if the Supreme Court allows any state to kick him off the 2024 ballot for his role in attempting to block the peaceful transfer of power.

Trump’s eligibility to return to the White House hinges on one paragraph in the Constitution that is far from a model of clarity.

Here’s what it says and doesn’t say and why it matters as the case moves forward.

Read the full story here.

Over 80 amicus, or "friend of the court," briefs have been filed with the Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson from groups across the political spectrum.

Names behind the briefs include those of constitutional law scholars and groups heavily involved in politics, such as the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Amicus briefs are typically filed by groups or people who are not parties to a specific case, but they can offer insight or expertise for the court to consider.

The Supreme Court today hears a momentous case about whether Trump can be kicked off the Republican primary ballot in Colorado because of his actions trying to overturn the 2020 election results.

Oral arguments in front of the nine justices begin just after 10 a.m. and could last for several hours.

The case could have broad implications if Trump loses, because other states could follow suit, placing hurdles in the way of his attempt to regain the presidency this fall. State officials in conservative-controlled governments have also warned they could seek to remove President Joe Biden from the ballot in response.

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, will tackle several novel and consequential legal issues concerning Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, enacted in the wake of the Civil War.

Read the full story here.

Supreme Court weighs whether Trump can stay on Colorado ballot

02:00