Failed effort to boot Trump from ballot exposes ‘radical’ left’s ‘pure lunacy’: state election chief

The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling to keep former President Donald Trump’s name on Colorado primary ballots is a win for democracy and further exposed the radical left’s “pure lunacy,” Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray told.

“It’s a huge moment for the American people,” Gray told in a phone interview shortly following SCOTUS’ decision. “And I think one of the lessons of this is … the way the radical left despises the American people and our process, and what happens then is lunacy. And that’s what their whole argumentation and what they were trying to do was. It was pure lunacy.”

Each of the nine Supreme Court justices ruled in Trump’s favor in a decision released Monday, ending legal threats in a handful of states that were working to remove the former president’s name over claims he incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” the opinion states.

Last year, a group of Colorado voters brought a lawsuit arguing Trump should be deemed ineligible from holding political office under a Civil War-era insurrection clause and that his name should thus be barred from appearing on the 2024 ballot. The group said Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021, when supporters breached the U.S. Capitol, violated a clause in the 14th Amendment that prevents officers of the United States, members of Congress or state legislatures who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution from holding political office.

The Colorado Supreme Court ultimately ruled to bar Trump from the ballot, with justices writing in their opinion that Trump “incited and encouraged” the use of violence to prevent the peaceful transfer of power on Jan. 6, 2021, following the 2020 presidential election.

Trump subsequently appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, and ultimately notched a victory on Monday.

For months, Gray has been battling Democrats’ argument that Trump is ineligible to appear on the primary ballots over Jan. 6 – an argument he’s also been calling “bunk” and likely doomed to fail.

“We kind of saw this coming. Last year, we wrote a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlon, when he was toying with the whole thing. And explained to him why this is totally inconsistent with the values of our republic, why Trump should be kept on the ballot for the New Hampshire primary, and why there was a national interest for other states to weigh in on this,” Gray told.

New Hampshire’s secretary of state ultimately said he would not invoke the 14th Amendment to remove Trump back in September. Gray went on to observe how the Colorado case was teeing up against Trump, and filed an amicus curiae brief, otherwise known as a friend of the court brief, with the Colorado Supreme Court to rectify a lower court’s ruling that labeled Trump an “insurrectionist.”

In January, Gray continued the battle when he filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Trump remaining on the Colorado ballot. Gray’s amicus brief was the only one filed by a secretary of state explicitly in support of Trump remaining on the ballot, as opposed to other secretaries who filed a brief with the Supreme Court but argued on behalf of neither party.

“I think that we saw this coming. We saw the national interest here. That all 50 states had an interest in this case, because when one state denies electors to a presidential candidate, that affects every single other state because that makes it more difficult for a candidate to achieve the 270 to reach victory,” he said.

“On top of that, states with later primaries or caucuses, like Wyoming, are affected if one state wants to remove a candidate from the primary or caucus ballot. So all 50 states had an interest in this,” he noted.

Gray’s efforts have earned him “some heat” from the Wyoming state legislature and local media, he said, pointing to an amendment in the Wyoming House’s version of a budget bill that would prevent him from filing amicus briefs in the future.

He called the effort “very troubling,” noting that the Colorado case was of national interest, not just a case affecting Coloradans, and of interest to Wyoming voters, who overwhelmingly supported Trump in both 2016 and 2020.

“Even in the state’s House, some of these arguments of the radical left are leading to lunacy and conclusions that don’t make any sense. But that’s what happens. The fact that the radical left despises the American people, our Republic, the traditions of our republic, that’s what this leads to. And it was really important that the national Supreme Court stepped in,” he said.

Legal experts speculated last month, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the Colorado case, that there was a strong chance they could unanimously rule in Trump’s favor. Justice Elena Kagan, for example, questioned whether one state should decide on behalf of the entire country who should be president. While Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged the assertion that there was no ambiguity in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

“It was pretty clear that writing was on the wall,” Gray said when asked if he anticipated the unanimous ruling based on oral arguments. “It was pretty clear where they were headed.”

Overall, Gray argued the Colorado case, and other states that worked to remove Trump from the ballot, are examples of “the radical left’s” “Trump derangement syndrome,” which produces “nonsense.”

“We’re going to continue to monitor the processes across our nation and be vigilant. Any time the people are able to choose for themselves, that’s a win for our republic and that’s what our elections are about. And I’m going to continue to unapologetically fight for the people of Wyoming, and the people across our country to choose who to elect for themselves,” Gray said.

Trump took a victory lap following the Supreme Court’s decision Monday, saying it is a “great win for America.”

“Equally important for our country will be the decision that they will soon make on immunity for a president — without which, the presidency would be relegated to nothing more than a ceremonial position, which is far from what the founders intended,” Trump told Fox News Digital. “No president would be able to properly and effectively function without complete and total immunity.”

He added, “Our country would be put at great risk.”