The Colorado Supreme Court Ruling is a Constiutional matter that warrants adjudication.
If disqualification from office for insurrection is a political punishment (like Impeachment), maybe a criminal conviction is not required.
From my layman's point of view ... I watched Janurary 6th, live, on TV. Lawyers and grammarians can debate the meaning of "insurrection" and its application to Donald Trump's conduct on, and before, January 6th. But, what I saw was a President of the United States summon a mob to DC, encourage them to march on to the Capitol, and then do nothing to stop the mob until he realized the mob assault on the Capitol had failed to delay the count of the Electoral votes.
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment apply to Trump's possible ineligibility to hold Federal office again?
Who makes that determination of fact, and who enforces it?
My inclination is the voters should have the final say. It's murky waters when we have courts deciding whose names may or may not appear on state ballots.
My ignorant opinion is that the US Supreme Court will uphold the Colorado Supreme Court ruling because Section 3 also offers a remedy:
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
