Colorado Secretary of State on Trump Disqualification Trial

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, INTERNATIONAL HOST: Now, in the United States, elections have been taking place all around for governors and state legislatures, which could be indicators for 2024. Meantime, Colorado is wrapping up a trial to decide whether former President Donald Trump is even eligible to be on their presidential ballot next year. Colorado’s secretary of state, Jena Griswold, one of the defendants in the case, now joins Hari Sreenivasan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARI SREENIVASAN, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Jena Griswold, secretary of state of Colorado, thanks so much for joining us. There’s a lawsuit in your state that’s pretty interesting to the rest of the country right now. It was brought by four members of the GOP, two independents, and they are saying that President Trump should not be on the ballot in Colorado because it basically removes their ability to “vote for a qualified candidate in the general election.” Explain the lawsuit as you understand it and whether you agree.

JENA GRISWOLD, COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, first off, thank you for having me on, Hari. And yes, we have a very interesting lawsuit out here in the State of Colorado. So, Section 3 of the 14th amendment says that any person who swears to uphold the constitution and subsequently engages in rebellion or insurrection or provides aid or comfort to the enemies of the constitution is disqualified from office. So, the six petitioners, which you rightly identified as four Republican and two unaffiliated voters, brought the suit saying that President Trump has disqualified himself by engaging in the insurrection. So, we were at trial all last week, and ultimately, a judge will have to decide whether Trump has disqualified himself.

SREENIVASAN: Do you agree with the basis for the lawsuit? Is this of concern to Coloradans?

GRISWOLD: Well, I agree that there is very clear language in the U.S. constitution. There are also very big questions about whether Trump’s activities rise to the level of engagement in insurrection or rebellion and other questions around how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment works. So, under Colorado State law, a court has the ability to review certification of a presidential primary candidate. So, that’s exactly what’s happening in this case. And I think overall, it will be a good thing to see that decision so that I have guidance as to whether Donald Trump can appear on the ballot, but also, other election officials across the nation.

SREENIVASAN: I should note that you’re a co-defendant in this. What’s your role here? You’re listed with Mr. Trump.

GRISWOLD: As secretary of state of the State of Colorado, I certify the ballot. So, I am a co-defendant because the people who brought this lawsuit say that I should not put him on the ballot. Now, I have not taken any official action. And actually, when this lawsuit was filed, we still didn’t even have the forms for Donald Trump’s candidacy. So, that’s why I’m a defendant. Our posture is that I do believe that Donald Trump incited the insurrection and that a court should determine whether that incitement rises to the level of engaged in insurrection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and other big questions around how the 14th Amendment works.

SREENIVASAN: What about the matter of being charged with or being convicted of insurrection? We see the trials that have been going on since January 6th. There were members of the Proud Boys who have been convicted of this. President — Former President Trump has not. Does that matter?

GRISWOLD: President Trump has been charged with various civil and criminal actions across the country. But the question as to whether a guilty verdict is needed for Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualification is a big question in this case. And what I can say is that historically, disqualification under this insurrection clause did not require a guilty verdict in criminal court. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was put in place after the civil war, and it was used to remove hundreds of confederate soldiers and officers from office during reconstruction. And again, historically, it did not require that guilty charge, but ultimately, we’ll see what the judge says.

SREENIVASAN: So, those words that we remember from January 6th, President Trump standing and telling the crowd, you know, we have to fight like hell. If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. How much of that is protected speech and what can be construed as incitement?

GRISWOLD: Well, those are some of the big questions that a judge will weigh in on. And of course, everybody has First Amendment rights, but those rights do not trump, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, nor do First Amendment rights protect from incitement of violence. These are our big questions. Did his actions rise to disqualification? Did he disqualify himself? Would the disqualification be just from being seated in office or being put on the ballot? Another question is, who gets to decide? And under Colorado law, if there is a challenge to certification, a judge decides. So, there is a lot of big questions, and I think either way that the guidance will be good for election officials across the country. These lawsuits are filed in various places, and we’re seeing it play out across the nation.

SREENIVASAN: Regardless of how this specific judge rules, it is likely to be challenged. We’re in a district court right now, right?

GRISWOLD: That’s right.

SREENIVASAN: So, what’s the likelihood, timeline wise, that we would get. either a referral to the Supreme Court or a decision for electors and state secretaries around the nation to have clear guidance on what to do.

GRISWOLD: Well, I think the judge in this first step of the case understands the urgency and the immediate nature of resolving the situation quickly. So, this case was filed on September 6th. In less than two months, we already had the trial. Closing arguments are on the 15th, and then the judge has indicated that she would like to try to issue the decision before Thanksgiving. As you say, it’s very likely that this case is appealed either by petitioners or Donald Trump or the Colorado GOP, which is also a party in the case, and then it would go to the Colorado Supreme Court. Now, whether or not it would then go to the U.S. Supreme Court, I think is a little premature. I think it depends on what the Colorado Supreme Court does and what other courts do across the nation.

SREENIVASAN: We should note for the record that the president’s team has called the case anti-democratic and said that their client’s words did not meet the Supreme Court’s threshold for incitement and therefore are protected by the First Amendment. Does the result from this case have bearing on those larger ideas on the larger ideas?

GRISWOLD: On the larger ideas of democracy?

SREENIVASAN: Of what is political speech and what is protected?

GRISWOLD: We could see that play out. We’ll see what the judge holds and what the lines of appeals are. So, we could see further information on what’s protected speech and what’s not. It’s too early to say.

SREENIVASAN: You know, it seems that the more President Trump comes under legal scrutiny in certain corners of America, his support increases. What do you say to those people, even in Colorado, who say, you know what, this is a political witch hunt, just like the president says it is, this is just another political maneuver to try to make sure that our candidate is not on the ballot?

GRISWOLD: Well, I say that following the law and upholding the U.S. constitution is exactly what we should do in a functioning democracy. You know, when there are questions about the law or the U.S. constitution, then it’s appropriate for a judge to weigh in and the legal process play out. You know, supporters, but more pointily, the former president, as soon as this lawsuit was filed, started to shout anywhere he could, oh, this is election interference. What was election interference was the January 6th insurrection, his team’s attempts to interfere with the electoral process, the fake electoral scheme, his conversations about seizing voting equipment. That’s what election interference truly is. Determining whether someone is disqualified by a clear provision in the U.S. constitution is how a constitutional republic should work.

SREENIVASAN: Why isn’t a case like this playing out in somewhere like Georgia, where there were recorded conversations of the president pressuring the secretary of state? I mean, that seems like a violation of the 14th Amendment.

GRISWOLD: Well, this case has been filed in various states. But the biggest cases are here in Colorado and in Minnesota. And, you know, when the case was initially filed, I asked myself the same question, why was it filed in the State of Colorado? And lawyers for the petitioners actually said in an interview that one of the reasons it was filed here in the State of Colorado is because we have that law in place, allowing voters to challenge certification and having that challenge go to a court of law. So, I would say that’s one of the big reasons our laws allow an easier challenge to qualification than in other states.

SREENIVASAN: Let’s kind of play this out for a minute. Let’s say that the petitioners win and this Colorado Supreme Court agrees. And there’s not an appeal that takes effect before the election. Is there a possibility that voters in Colorado would not see Donald Trump on the ballot where voters in other states might?

GRISWOLD: Well, I don’t want to get too far into hypotheticals because there’s a lot of time still to work this issue out. But I think that the bigger question is that whatever court decision or order is in effect when I certify the ballot is what I’ll do. So, my job as an office holder is to follow the law and uphold the constitution. I swore to do that to my first term and second term. And when we have these big questions, a court of law weighs in. So, I think it’s too — it’s premature to say what exactly will happen. But there are big questions around the case. That’s why we just had a five-day trial with people testifying on both sides.

SREENIVASAN: You know, there’s also a line of thinking that says, why not just let this play out at the ballot box?

GRISWOLD: There is a lot of political discussion, folks who on one side say this lawsuit is a good idea, folks on the other side who say it’s a bad idea. But my job isn’t to pay attention to the politics. My job is to follow the law, uphold the U.S. constitution, which includes listening to what a court of law says. You know, this provision is in the U.S. constitution for a reason. And that reason was that, you know, the office holders, back when, believed that folks who engaged in insurrection or rebellion should not be at the helm of elected office or in any office in this country. So, we just have to wait to see what the judge says. And my job will be to follow whatever the judge says at the time of certification.

SREENIVASAN: You are the first Democrat to hold this office in the State of Colorado in a long time, there are going to be people who look at this and say, well, clearly, she’s no fan of the former president. That’s why she wants to do this. I mean, these decisions, these lawsuits, none of this happens in a political vacuum. And while you might not want to look at and factor in the politics of it, everyone else in America today seems to take politics into account.

GRISWOLD: What I would say is, yes, I’m the first Democratic secretary of state elected in Colorado in 60 years since President Eisenhower was president. And in this case, I did not bring this case. I’m actually a defendant in this case. The lawsuit is filed under the premise to bar me as secretary of state in my official capacity from putting Donald Trump on the ballot. And when it comes down to the politics, when we have questions of how our elections work, how the U.S. constitution functions, how our laws work, again, my job is to follow the law, uphold the constitution, and listen to a court. I do believe Donald Trump is dangerous to our democracy. His lies and misinformation about the elections have fueled voter suppression laws across this nation, has incited attacks on election infrastructure, including three here in the State of Colorado. Has led to an unprecedented level of vitriol and threats to election officials, which has caused election officials across the nation to step down. I do believe he’s a threat to democracy. I also believe, in this case, whether he has disqualified himself from taking office. Given how Colorado law works, it’s in the hands of a court. And honestly, I think that’s good. A court should be holding an investigation and determining what she thinks. That’s a necessary step in the climate we see ourselves in today.

SREENIVASAN: So, what’s the political climate in Colorado since this case was filed?

GRISWOLD: The political climate since the insurrection and the attempted stealing of the presidency has been really hard for election administration. We’ve seen threats and vitriol skyrocket across the nation. It has the effect of having election workers step down. Here in the State of Colorado, we’ve actually had about one-third of local county elected election officials step down since 2020. And since this immediate case, we saw a skyrocket of threats against me. Within three weeks, there was over 60 death threats and over 900 type two threats, so non-death threats.

SREENIVASAN: Traditionally, the jobs that monitor and certify elections have been lower profile. That’s just not the case anymore. And I wonder what do you do when you become the focus of so much of the hate and vitriol and the threats?

GRISWOLD: Well, I’ll tell you, it’s scary. This is not the first time that I’ve received a massive amount of threats. The threats against me myself started in the summer of ’21. They oscillate, they reach a peak, then they decrease. And at this point, two men have been found guilty for threatening my life over election disinformation and conspiracies. That’s why I say the president is dangerous to democracy. The fact that his rhetoric and actions incite violence against election workers is troubling. That’s not how American elections can work. In those words, they can lead to violence. We saw the attempted kidnapping of the governor of Michigan. The attack against Paul Pelosi, the attack on the U.S. Capitol. So, this isn’t a joke. What’s happening on this attack against democracy is real. For me, personally, I take the threat seriously and take precautions, but I won’t be intimidated and I won’t be stopped. And the last thing I would say on this, all those threats that I’ve received since the filing of this lawsuit is from me being a defendant. I actually haven’t even taken any action. And that really shows how volatile the national dangerous rhetoric is against election workers and often at a heightened degree against women elected officials.

SREENIVASAN: I know that you speak to other secretaries of state. There are organizations that bring you all together and I wonder if you’ve spoken to folks like Brad Raffensperger or others that share your concerns about administering elections.

GRISWOLD: Yes. I have spoken with many secretaries of state about the challenging times and including Brad and secretaries across the nation. There are good secretaries of state out there. The Democrats are there to open up access, increase security. But there’s also a troubling trend among secretaries of state. There are now six election denier secretary of state that were elected or appointed in recent years. Luckily, we were able to stop election deniers from winning races in battleground states. And I was happy to lead that charge and help protect American democracy, because the American people, not crooked politicians trying to put their finger on the scale of elections, should be the one choosing the president next year.

SREENIVASAN: Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, thanks so much for your time.

GRISWOLD: Thank you.