译载：剥夺川普选举权利的科罗拉多州最高法庭错在哪里？
本文翻译自：
Colorado's Supreme Court is Wrong：https://shadowwolf37.blogspot.com/2024/01/colorados-supreme-court-is-wrong.html
我们先摆摆那些没有什么争议的事实：
2020年12月19日，特朗普@realDonaldTrump在他的Twitter上发布的一条消息说：“1月6日在华盛顿有一场大规模抗议活动。到时候一定会很混乱！”。之后他继续多次发帖，号召他的支持者举行集会抗议2020年总统选举结果的认证工作。
1月6日，响应特朗普号召的人群冲进国会大厦，试图阻止国会批准2020年选举结果，他们闯入了国会大楼，混乱中导致了多人死亡，百余人受伤。直到傍晚冲入国会大厦的人群才被清场。
特朗普随后在一条后来删除的推文中写到 “一场神圣的大选胜利如此不庄重地被剥夺”（否认了拜登当选的合法性）。他在同一推文中还呼吁他支持者“[带着]爱心和平安回家”。
1月13日美国联邦众议院以“煽动叛乱”罪名通过了对特朗普进行了弹劾，并将控罪于1月25日送交参议院。而参议院于2月13日宣告特朗普无罪。
2023年9月6日，科罗拉多州的多名原告，以诺玛·安德森（Norma Anderson）的名义提起诉讼，向科罗拉多地方法院提出了特朗普不应出现在科罗拉多州的共和党初选选票上。此案的被诉讼对象是科罗拉多州国务卿杰娜·格里斯沃德（Jena Griswold），即为《安德森诉格里斯沃德案》。
原告辩称，特朗普通过鼓励1月6日的群众参与叛乱，违反了宪法第十四修正案第三款，因此在该案中应被取消参选资格。
任何人，曾作为国会议员、美国官员或任何州的行政或司法官员，宣誓支持美国宪法，却参与反叛或暴动，或为其提供援助或庇护的，均不得成为国会议员、国会众议员、总统和副总统的选举人，或在美国或任何州的公职、军职。但国会可以经过每一院三分之二的投票，解除此类资格。
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
受理该案的地方法官Wallace于2023年11月17日裁定：特朗普应保留在选票上。理由是：尽管有压倒性证据证明特朗普曾参与叛乱，但Wallace法官认为美国总统并不符合第十四修正案的“美国官员” 身份。
原告不服，于11月20日上诉，科罗拉多州最高法院于次日受理上诉。
科罗拉多州最高法院最终以4比3的多数裁定，推翻了地方法院的决定。
州最高法庭的对此案的多数派意见中，是基于如下几个重要观点判定推翻地方法院的判据，其中包括：
“4.各州有权评估总统候选人的资格”（pdf第30页），
并且认为 “7.第1-1-113条例程为诉讼当事人提供足够的正当程序”（pdf第44页）。就正当程序而言，多数派意见认为“地方法院的程序并未表明特朗普总统被剥夺通知或充分回应对他提出的指控，或提出有力的辩护意见的机会”（pdf第47页）。
科罗拉多州最高法院多数意见的基本结论是，
1.地方法院有权裁定候选人是否因叛乱条款而被取消资格，
2.同意地方法院特朗普确实参与了叛乱，
3.不同意地方法院对总统身份的认定。认为美国联邦总统是美国官员，并受到叛乱条款的约束。
州最高法院在前两点上与地方法院意见一致，但是在第三点上意见不一致，即Wallace法官裁定原告败诉的理由。
科罗拉多州最高法院多数意见最终支持原告，命令格里斯沃德州务卿将特朗普从初选选票上移除，前提是美国最高法院不介入。
我认为科罗拉多州最高法院的这一判决存在严重问题。
在此我没有资格更多谈论科罗拉多或宪法法律的复杂性，当然你亦无需因此人云亦云。
且让我们看看科罗拉多州最高法庭在此案的三名少数派法官的意见。
科罗拉多州最高法庭首席大法官Boatright 也是少数派之一。他认为，这一案件的基础，即本案所涉及的州选举法第1-1-113条款具有有限的范围。州选举法从未旨在“决定候选人是否参与叛乱”（异议书第1页，pdf第135页）。
Boatright首席大法官进一步解释，本案中涉及的选举法仅限于对简单客观事实的判定，例如某人是否至少35岁。它并不旨在解决像涉及在任总统叛乱这样复杂的宪法问题。由于这项州的法律管辖范围非常有限，以至于甚至规定选举挑战的听证必须在短短5天内进行。而实际上该案的复杂性导致举行听证时已经远远超过该法律的期限；
原告是基于美国联邦宪法基础提出诉讼，而根据美国联邦宪法第十四条第三款，如要剥夺候选人资格，则需要来自美国国会两院三分之二的投票决定。这样的权利和资格的剥夺是一件极其严重和严肃的事件，必须要有与叛乱相关的案件判决作为基础。而到目前为止，唐纳德·特朗普并没有因叛乱被刑事定罪（因为叛乱而被剥夺资格是另一个问题，即第三条是否是自动执行问题。目前多数意见认为是，也有少数持有异议者）。
州最高法院另一个少数派法官Seymour同样指出了该案程序的不谨慎性。他批评地方法院将“联邦宪法主张（而且是一项复杂的主张）”作为“一项普通的州选举法规定”来对待。 （异议书第2页，pdf第147页）
他指出，第十四修正案本身并没有规定此类案件的程序，包括举证责任等。 （异议书第3页）虽然修正案的第五节允许国会进行相应的立法，但国会目前尚未对此进行立法。这就意味着法院应该如何对待这类案件的标准也是完全不清楚；
地方法院把用于民事案件的“优势证据”的假定责任证明的标准，而不是刑事案件的"远高于合理怀疑"的标准用于本案。在没有明确的执法标准的情况，地方法院擅自假定这样一个较低的举证责任用于本案明显是错误的。
在联邦政府对此类案件有着法律缺省的情况下，对于地方擅自制定自己规则的做法，Seymour提出一个简单明了的观点：
“科罗拉多的选举法并不是美国联邦国会所制定的法律的法外之地。”（pdf第177页）
第三个少数派法官Berkenkotter则在地方法院对此类案件裁定权的广泛性上提出异议。他不仅认为地方法院对此案的判决超出了直接挑战的历史性范围，而且认为地方法院对其权限阐述也超过了“可辨认的界限”（pdf第190页）。
目前该案已经上诉至美国联邦最高法院。预计联邦最高法院很可能会审理此案。
而科罗拉多州最高法院中，在该案持反对意见的少数派法官提出了非常有说服力的论点：特朗普在该案应该获得的正当程序，确实被违反了。
程序正当性，即确保所有个体获得公正审判的理念，对于一个健全的法律体系至关重要。科罗拉多州最高法院的决定确立了一种危险的先例：贬低了正当程序。
如果仅仅从证据上看，唐纳德·特朗普似乎有罪，但这并不足以作为定罪依据。他必须被给予无罪推定，并在正式的法庭上受审才能最后定罪。
那些认为特朗普民主的巨大威胁，我们必须绕过民主程序来拯救民主的人，违背的正是他们所秉持的民主的原则。通过破坏法治这一核心原则来拯救民主是行不通的。
我相信美国最高法院将推翻科罗拉多州最高法院的这一令人震惊的决定。
————————————
原文全文：
Colorado's Supreme Court is Wrong
On the 6th of September 2023 multiple plaintiffs in Colorado, under the titular plaintiff Norma Anderson, filed a lawsuit with a Colorado district court arguing that Donald Trump must not appear on Colorado’s Republican primary ballot. The suit is directed to Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold. The plaintiffs in Anderson v. Griswold argued that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection by encouraging the mob on January 6th, which disqualifies him under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Fourteenth Amendment
The basic conclusions of the Colorado Supreme Court’s majority decision was that 1. the district court can rule on whether a candidate can be removed due to the insurrection clause, 2. agrees with the lower court that Trump had indeed engaged in insurrection, 3. disagrees with the lower court that the presidency is indeed an officer of the United States and thus subject to the insurrection clause. Because the Supreme Court agrees with the first 2 and disagrees on the 3rd, which was grounds why judge Wallace ruled against the plaintiff, the majority decision of the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering Secretary Griswold to remove Donald Trump from the primary ballot, assuming the Supreme Court of the United States doesn’t step in.
There are serious issues with this decision. I have no credibility to speak on the intricacies of Colorado or constitutional law, and you have no reason to trust me, but you don’t have to. Look at the dissenting opinions of the 3 justices not in the majority. Chief Justice Boatright argued that section 1-1-113, the election law that is the grounds for this case, has a limited scope. It was never intended to “ decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection” (pg 1 of dissent, pdf page 135). Chief Justice Boatright goes on to explain that the election law in question was limited to straightforward challenges of requirements that have a simple objective answer, such as whether someone is at least 35 years old. It was not intended to solve a complex constitutional issue like insurrection. Because this law was meant to be so limited, there’s a statute that said hearings for electoral challenges must be held within 5 days, which this case had well expired. Plaintiffs challenged on constitutional grounds and because a Section 3 disqualification needs 2/3rds from both houses of the United States Congress to overturn, such a disqualification ought to be very severe. There ought to be an insurrection-related conviction to justify the severity, and Donald Trump has not been criminally convicted for insurrection. (This gets into another issue raised numerous times during the case of whether Section 3 is self-executing, with the majority arguing it is and dissenters arguing it is not.)
Justice Seymour’s dissent likewise points to the lack of meticulousness of procedure. He criticizes the lower court for treating “a federal constitutional claim (a complicated one at that) [by] masquerading [it] as a run-of-the-mill state Election Code claim.” (Dissent pg 2, pdf pg 147) He points out that the Amendment 14 itself does not set out procedures, including burden of proof, for such cases. (Dissent pg 3) While Section 5 of the Amendment allows congress to legislate accordingly, they have yet to do so. This means that to what standard a court should even treat such a case is completely unclear, and it is wrong for the lower court to assume a lower burden of proof. The district court assumed the burden of proof as a preponderance of evidence, meaning more likely than not, which is the standard for normal civil cases, as opposed to the much higher burden of beyond a reasonable doubt used for criminal cases. Justice Seymour had one concise sentence to respond to the idea that well, if the feds haven’t acted, we’ll make up our own rules: “Colorado’s Election Code Cannot Supply What Congress Has Withheld” (pdf page 177)
Justice Berkenkotter dissents on the grounds that the lower court’s decision interprets the court’s authority to judge such cases in too broad of a manner. Not only does it vastly expand beyond the historic norm from straightforward challenges, the lower court’s new vast interpretation of court power has no “discernible limits.” (pdf page 190)
The case has already been appealed to the Supreme Court and it is very likely that they will take it up. The dissenting justices on the Colorado Supreme Court make very convincing arguments that Donald Trump’s due process was indeed violated in this attempt to bar him from the primary ballot. Due process, the idea that all individuals must receive the procedures to ensure free trials, is foundational to a healthy legal system. The decision by the Colorado Supreme Court sets a dangerous precedent trivializing due process. Just because by the evidence we can see, Donald Trump seems guilty, does not suffice as proof. He must be given the presumption of innocence and tried in a formal court of law. Those who argue that Trump poses too severe a risk to democracy that we must circumvent democracy to save democracy aren’t hearing themselves. Democracy cannot be saved by undermining a core tenet of the rule of law. I’m confident the Supreme Court of the United States will overturn this egregious decision by the Colorado Supreme Court.
P.S. For the life of me I could not figure out how to properly cite this case as case law. Here is the link to the official pdf of the case instead: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
P.P.S. Colorado’s decision already has repercussions. Maine has followed suit, with the Secretary taking initiative instead of the courts. You can read about it from a well regarded nonpartisan source here: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/02/1222389987/donald-trump-maine-election-ballot-2024-supreme-court
评论