20231219科羅拉多州最高法院判決 2023CO63 科羅拉多最高法院 / Taimicracy翻譯

20231219科羅拉多州最高法院判決 2023CO63

【雙魚之論】英文拷到 G / D 找中文翻譯
The Supreme Court of Colorado rule that former President Trump should not be on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot due to the Section Three of the 14^th Amendment of the US Constitution.  Enclosed is the reason:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
〈美國憲法第14號修正案〉

20231219科羅拉多州最高法院判決 2023CO63　　科羅拉多最高法院/Taimocracy翻譯

PER CURIAM	根據法官一致意見
¶1 More than three months ago, a group of Colorado electors eligible to vote in the Republican presidential primary—both registered Republican and unaffiliated voters (“the Electors”)—filed a lengthy petition in the District Court for the City and County of Denver (“Denver District Court” or “the district court”), asking the court to rule that former President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) may not appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot.	¶1 三個多月前，一群有資格在共和黨總統初選中投票的科羅拉多「選舉人」，包括註冊的共和黨選民和無黨派選民（以下簡稱「選舉人」），在丹佛市和丹佛郡地方法院（以下簡稱「丹佛地方法院」或「地方法院」）提交了一份冗長的請願書，要求法院裁定前總統唐納德·J·川普（以下簡稱「川普總統」）不得出現在科羅拉多州共和黨總統初選選票上。
¶2 Invoking provisions of Colorado’s Uniform Election Code of 1992, §§ 1-1-101 to 1-13-804, C.R.S. (2023) (the “Election Code”), the Electors requested that the district court prohibit Jena Griswold, in her official capacity as Colorado’s Secretary of State (“the Secretary”), from placing President Trump’s name on the presidential primary ballot.  They claimed that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“Section Three”) disqualified President Trump from seeking the presidency.  More specifically, they asserted that he was ineligible under Section Three because he engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, after swearing an oath as President to support the U.S. Constitution.	¶2 「選舉人」援引科羅拉多州1992年的〈統一選舉法案〉（以下簡稱〈選舉法〉）（Sections 1-1-101至1-13-804，C.R.S.（2023）），要求地方法院禁止科羅拉多州勞埃納·格里斯沃德（Jena Griswold）以科羅拉多州州務卿的職務（以下簡稱「州務卿」）的名義將川普總統的名字列入總統初選的選票上。他們聲稱，美國憲法第十四修正案的第三條（以下簡稱「第三條」）使川普總統失去了競選總統的資格。更具體地說，他們主張根據第三條川普是不適格的，因為他宣誓擔任總統後，在2021年1月6日參與了一場「內亂」。[1]
¶3 After permitting President Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee (“CRSCC”; collectively, “Intervenors”) to intervene in the action below, the district court conducted a five-day trial.  The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.  Anderson v. Griswold, No. 23CV32577, ¶¶ 241, 298 (Dist. Ct., City & Cnty. of Denver, Nov. 17, 2023).  But, the district court concluded, Section Three does not apply to the President.  Id. at ¶ 313.  Therefore, the court denied the petition to keep President Trump off the presidential primary ballot.  Id. at Part VI. Conclusion.	¶3 在允許川普總統和科羅拉多州共和黨州中央委員會（總稱為「干預者」）在下級法院採取干預行動後，地方法院進行為期五天的審判。法院憑藉明確且令人信服的證據得出結論，即川普總統參與了內亂，這些詞語正如第三條所用的那樣。Anderson v. Griswold，案號23CV32577，¶¶ 241，298（城市和縣市分區法院，2023年11月17日）。但是，地方法院得出結論，第三條不適用於總統。在第313號的Id。因此，法院拒絕了保持川普總統不列入總統初選選票的請願書。Id. VI.結論的一部分。
¶4 The Electors and President Trump sought this court’s review of various rulings by the district court.  We affirm in part and reverse in part.  We hold as follows: • The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three.  Indeed, the Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under Section Three. • Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that sense, self-executing. • Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.  • Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone who has taken an oath as President.  On this point, the district court committed reversible error. • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial. • The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.” • The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions. • President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment.	¶4 「選舉人」和川普總統尋求本法院對下級法院的各項裁決進行審查。我們對一部分有肯定，對另一部分有反駁。我們判定如下：   • 〈選舉法〉允許「選舉人」基於第三條挑戰川普總統為適格候選人的地位。確實，〈選舉法〉為「選舉人」提供了他們唯一可行的一種方式，以訴訟的方式確定川普總統是否符合第三條不適格的標準。     • 國會無需透過另行立法，即可使第三條的取消資格條款生效，從這個意義上說，第三條是自動實施的。   • 對川普總統根據第三條是否適格擔任總統一職的司法審查，並不因政治問題原則而受阻。   • 第三條包括總統職務和已宣誓就任總統的人。在這一方面，地方法院犯下了得撤銷判決的可逆錯誤。   • 在審判中允許國會1月6日報告的部分內容作為證據方面，地方法院並未濫用其裁量權。   • 地方法院在導出，即2021年1月6日美國國會大廈的事件構成一場「內亂」之結論方面，並未犯錯。   • 地方法院在導出，川普總統透過其個人行為參與了那場內亂之結論方面，並未犯錯。   • 川普總統在2021年1月6日對煽動侵入美國國會大廈的人群之演說並不受到第一修正案的保護。
¶5 The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.	¶5 上述部分的總和是：川普總統根據第三條被取消資格擔任總統一職；因其不適格，故「州務卿」根據〈選舉法〉將其列為總統初選的候選人是錯誤行為。
¶6 We do not reach these conclusions lightly.  We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us.  We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.	¶6 我們並非輕率地得出這些結論。我們有意識到目前面臨的問題的重大和分量。同樣，我們也意識到我們應恪守法律的嚴肅責任，毫無畏懼或偏袒，意識到法律授權我們作決定不得受到輿論的影響。
¶7 We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory, and that this case presents several issues of first impression.  But for our resolution of the Electors’ challenge under the Election Code, the Secretary would be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot.  Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot).  If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.	¶7 我們也意識到這個案件涉及一些首次出現的問題，我們正在未知的領域中前進。但如果不是我們在〈選舉法〉下解決「選舉人」挑戰，「州務卿」將會在2024年總統初選的選票上包含川普總統的名字。因此，為了在美國聯邦最高法院進行任何審查前能保持現狀，我們將我們的裁決2024年1月4日前暫緩實施（「州務卿」認證總統初選選票內容的截止日期前一天）。如果在2024年1月4日前在聯邦最高法院審查，則此暫緩將持續不變，且「州務卿」將得在2024年總統初選選票上包含川普總統名字，直至收到最高法院的任何命令或法令。表單的頂端

 

 

---

[1]  Consistent with past practice in election-related cases with accelerated timelines, we issue this opinion per curiam.  E.g., Kuhn v. Williams, 2018 CO 30M, 418 P.3d 478; In re Colo. Gen. Assemb., 332 P.3d 108 (Colo. 2011); In re Reapportionment of Colo. Gen. Assemb., 647 P.2d 191 (Colo. 1982).  與選舉相關案件中加速時間表的過去慣例保持一致，我們透過本判決書一致發表意見。例如，Kuhn v. Williams，2018 CO 30M，418 P.3d 478；In re Colo. Gen. Assemb.，332 P.3d 108（科羅拉多，2011年）；In re Reapportionment of Colo. Gen. Assemb.，647 P.2d 191（科羅拉多，1982年）。