Left: Democratic Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold responds to a question during a candidate debate, Oct. 11, 2022, on the campus of the University of Denver in southeast Denver. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, File). Right: Former President Donald Trump with his legal team appear in civil court on October 24th, 2023 for charges brought against him by NY AG Letitia James. (Photo by John Nacion/NurPhoto via AP)
Voters who wished to depose Donald Trump ahead of his trial next week over whether Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold can remove him from the ballot there in light of his conduct on Jan. 6, were rejected after a judge denied their request in a tersely-worded order.
Second Judicial District Judge Sarah Wallace’s succinct response to those voters stated merely that “ordering a deposition in these expedited proceedings, at this late juncture, is neither feasible nor appropriate.”
The petitioners, a group of Republicans and one politically unaffiliated voter, are represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, and they asked the court to depose Trump for the sake of preserving trial testimony. They argued that early on he had been identified as a potential witness in the case that aims to disqualify the former president from appearing on the state’s ballot in 2024. The voters allege Trump violated Section III of the Fourteenth Amendment, a constitutional provision that prohibits a person from holding office, who, in short, engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. government or gave aid and comfort to its enemies.
A representative for CREW did not immediately respond to a request for comment to Law&Crime on Wednesday.
This was not the only order denying a request that Wallace issued in the case this week.
In a separate order from Oct. 23, she denied Trump’s request that Griswold be aligned with the petitioners in the case, since, in the words of Trump’s attorney Geoffrey Blue to the court in an Oct. 13 motion, “the Secretary has never been neutral in this matter.”
“She has pre-judged President Trump, loudly and publicly declaring her support for Petitioners,” Blue said. “She has consistently taken legal positions in opposition to President Trump. The Secretary’s position in opposition to President Trump should be clearly reflected in the position of the parties in this litigation, and the Court should realign her as a petitioner.”
Once more to the point in her order addressing the parties, the judge responded this week that while Griswold “might have her own personal views of Intervenor Trump, in the context of this litigation, she is not antagonistic such that realignment is appropriate.”
Through his attorney Blue, Trump, who faces four criminal indictments in venues throughout the U.S, had also recently questioned whether the court in Colorado could run trial proceedings efficiently next week.
Wallace offered her assurance and said that the order of the trial presentation would be petitioners, or voters first, then Griswold, then Trump’s attorneys and then members of the Colorado GOP who have filed in support of Trump’s remaining on the ballot.
“Petitioners will be allowed to put on a rebuttal case to the extent they have time left but any rebuttal case is limited to addressing something unforeseen or regarding a subject matter not addressed in Petitioners’ case in chief,” Wallace wrote.
As for cross-examinations, the judge ordered that to the extent any party wants to, they will be allowed to cross-examine all witnesses “except that the Intervenors may not cross-examine each others witnesses.”
Explaining further, Wallace wrote: “Finally, while the Court does not anticipate this will be an issue, the Court will employ the one touch rule. Meaning the Court will not allow Parties to recall witnesses, but instead will expect the Parties to ask all questions they have of any given witness when that witness is first called.”
Blue did not return a request for comment Wednesday.
Trump has tried to dismiss the case no less than three times but to no avail. She rejected Trump’s bid to remove the case on grounds that the voter’s petition violated anti-SLAPP statutes. She was left equally unconvinced by arguments of “improper” procedure suggesting Secretary Griswold lacks the authority to remove Trump from the ballot if he is in fact found to be disqualified under Section III.
That is a question, the judge explained, that would be better left for trial on Oct. 30.
A constitutional expert who analyzed the impending trial told Law&Crime last month that stakes were remarkably high in the impending trial.
The last time Congress enforced Section III was in 1919 when lawmakers barred the socialist congressman Victor Berger from serving after he was accused of providing aid to Germany in World War I. Berger was seated in a later Congress after the U.S. Supreme Court acquitted him of espionage on grounds of judicial bias. But for the states, bids to disqualify insurrectionists have been rare and mostly unsuccessful, though CREW’s efforts representing three voters in New Mexico in 2022 were an exception. There, CREW led a lawsuit that resulted in former Otero county commissioner and convicted rioter Cuoy Griffin losing his right to ever again serve in office because of his actions at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
