Former Trump-era Attorney General Bill Barr expressed his disagreement with the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to exclude former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot in the state. In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Barr criticized the court’s five-day hearing, asserting that it lacked due process and warning of potential “chaos” in future elections.
Barr challenged a piece written by David Frum for The Atlantic, which claimed the Colorado court provided Republicans with a chance to save themselves. Barr emphasized the importance of the court adhering to the rule of law and following established standards rather than creating a vague and subjective process.
Addressing the practical consequences of the ruling, Barr stated, “The practical consequences—put principles aside—the practical consequences of this ruling would be chaos.” He pointed out the lack of a clear standard, questioning how terms like “insurrection” and “engagement” would be defined and applied across different states. Barr highlighted the potential for each state to establish its own rules and procedures, leading to inconsistency in determining which national candidates are eligible for the ballot.
Barr, who resigned from the Trump administration after the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot, noted that Special Counsel Jack Smith did not charge the former president with inciting an insurrection. Despite three charges filed against Trump for allegedly attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election, Barr stated that he has not seen sufficient evidence to reasonably accuse Trump of inciting an insurrection.
Several Republican candidates challenging Trump in the primary have defended him against the state justices’ decision. Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy called it “un-American,” and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. Notably, the four justices in favor of the decision have previously donated to Democratic candidates, while Chief Justice Brian Boatright dissented, arguing that the state law was not intended to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection.
