Monday, February 23, 2026

FACT CHECK: Far-Left Group’s NowDC March Isn’t a Veterans March, Despite Media Claims.

The corporate media is promoting a demonstration on the National Mall organized by the far-left Fourteenth Now organization as a veterans march. However, the NowDC march on the National Mall isn’t a veterans march at all, and its organizer, Fourteenth Now, isn’t a veterans interest group—though that hasn’t stopped outlets like Newsweek from claiming so.

Fourteenth Now is a political group founded by Jessica Denson, a political staffer who worked on the 2016 Trump campaign and subsequently became a far-left critic of President Donald J. Trump. Despite Denson’s relatively minor role in 2016, she has used her Trump campaign stint to become a media darling and fundraise for her Fourteenth Now group. Notably, Denson is not a veteran; rather, she is a failed Hollywood actress who was accused by her supervisor during the 2016 Trump campaign of leaking President Trump’s private tax returns.

Denson and her organization have routinely held small protests in Washington, D.C., demanding Congress use the 14th Amendment to bar President Trump from office. The National Pulse has previously noted that Trump was never convicted of insurrection—a prerequisite for the use of the 14th Amendment—and the United States Supreme Court has ruled that Trump is not disqualified from office under the constitutional provision.

WHY IT MATTERS.

Simply put, what is being billed as a veterans march isn’t one at all. Fourteenth Now isn’t a veterans group; Jessica Denson isn’t a veteran, and the only connection to veterans the NowDC march has is that Denson and her organization are asking veterans to join them. At best, what Denson and Fourteenth Now are doing is a shameless political grift; at worst, it is a bizarre attempt at Stolen Valor.

Veterans’ marches in Washington, D.C., hold significant historical meaning. While the NowDC organizing website uses stock photos from Martin Luther King Jr.‘s March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, by portraying itself as a veterans’ march, Denson is evoking the image of Marine Corps General Smedley Butler and his Bonus Army march on Washington, D.C.

In June 1932, Butler led nearly 50,000—including upwards of 20,000 World War I veterans—in a march on Washington, D.C., to demand Service Certificates be paid out early as the Great Depression left many veterans out of work. When Congress adjourned without action on the veterans’ demands, the Bonus Army occupied the National Mall for over a month until they were dispersed in a calvary charge led by General Douglas MacArthur.

Image by Burkhard Mücke.

show less
The corporate media is promoting a demonstration on the National Mall organized by the far-left Fourteenth Now organization as a veterans march. However, the NowDC march on the National Mall isn't a veterans march at all, and its organizer, Fourteenth Now, isn't a veterans interest group—though that hasn't stopped outlets like Newsweek from claiming so. show more

Democrat States Challenge Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order in Court.

Democrat attorneys general from 18 states have filed a lawsuit against President Donald J. Trump, challenging his executive order that denies birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal immigrants. The legal action was initiated in the Federal District Court of Massachusetts, with San Francisco and Washington, D.C., joining as co-complainants. This lawsuit represents the beginning of what is anticipated to be an extended legal dispute over the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin (D), leading the lawsuit along with counterparts from California and Massachusetts, claims the executive order is presidential overreach, stating that Trump cannot unilaterally amend constitutional rights. Platkin emphasized, “Presidents are powerful, but he is not a king. He cannot rewrite the Constitution with a stroke of the pen.”

The executive order was signed by Trump on Monday, at the onset of his second term in the White House. Under Trump’s order, if both parents are immigrants, their children born in the United States are not automatically granted citizenship. The order argues that these children are not covered by the 14th Amendment‘s citizenship clause.

This interpretation challenges late 19th and early 20th-century legal precedent affirming birthright citizenship, with only a specific exclusion for children of accredited diplomats. However, there is division within the judiciary. For instance, Judge James C. Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has shown some agreement with Trump’s perspective.

Nonetheless, this court’s jurisdiction does not extend to cases in Massachusetts, where the current lawsuit was filed.

show less
Democrat attorneys general from 18 states have filed a lawsuit against President Donald J. Trump, challenging his executive order that denies birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal immigrants. The legal action was initiated in the Federal District Court of Massachusetts, with San Francisco and Washington, D.C., joining as co-complainants. This lawsuit represents the beginning of what is anticipated to be an extended legal dispute over the Trump administration’s immigration policies. show more

Democrats Say They Won’t Certify Trump Victory in Congress.

Democrats who have spent the last three years labeling former President Donald Trump and other Republicans who questioned the 2020 presidential election results as “insurrectionists” now claim they’ll refuse to certify a potential Trump victory in November.

The Atlantic reports:

[Attorney Jason] Murray and other legal scholars say that, absent clear guidance from the Supreme Court, a Trump win could lead to a constitutional crisis in Congress. Democrats would have to choose between confirming a winner many of them believe is ineligible and defying the will of voters who elected him. Their choice could be decisive: As their victory in a House special election in New York last week demonstrated, Democrats have a serious chance of winning a majority in Congress in November, even if Trump recaptures the presidency on the same day. If that happens, they could have the votes to prevent him from taking office.

In interviews, senior House Democrats would not commit to certifying a Trump win, saying they would do so only if the Supreme Court affirms his eligibility. But during oral arguments, liberal and conservative justices alike seemed inclined to dodge the question of his eligibility altogether and throw the decision to Congress.

The apparent contingency plan comes amid sliding approval ratings for President Joe Biden and mounting indications Trump could win a second term in 2024.

The crux of the plan is based on the recent Colorado Supreme Court ruling that the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause bars Trump from the presidential ballot. If the U.S. Supreme Court does not clearly rule against the Colorado court’s decision, it leaves open the door for Congressional Democrats to attempt to block the certification of the 2024 presidential election on the grounds that Trump is ineligible under the insurrection clause.

If Congressional Democrats won a House majority and were to refuse to certify the 2024 presidential election, it would set off a potential constitutional crisis. With the Electoral College winner thrown out, the Constitution indicates the election of the President would be thrown to the House of Representatives. Thus far, senior House Democrats have refused to say if they would certify a Trump victory in November. Some have said they would only do so if the Supreme Court explicitly affirmed his eligibility to serve.

Democratic officials have prosecuted and incarcerated thousands connected to the Capitol riot on January 6th, 2021, while concurrently accusing Republican attempts to legally overturn what they consider potentially fraudulent 2020 results as another form of insurrection. The lawfare campaign against Trump has also aimed to prevent his candidacy in the 2024 election through several federal and state prosecutions.

show less
Democrats who have spent the last three years labeling former President Donald Trump and other Republicans who questioned the 2020 presidential election results as "insurrectionists" now claim they'll refuse to certify a potential Trump victory in November. show more

VA’s 1st Black Speaker – Literally A Felon – Demands Trump Off The Ballot Because ‘He’s Too Extreme.’

Virginia’s first black Speaker of the House of Delegates, Don Scott, says Donald Trump should not be allowed on the Commonwealth’s primary ballot for the 2024 presidential election. However, Scott’s reason for wanting to bar Trump differs from his colleagues who have pursued ballot bans in other states.

Instead of citing the “insurrection clause” found in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Scott merely thinks Trump should be banned over ideology. In a recent interview, Scott called Trump “too extreme for Virginia,” adding “and he’ll continue to be.”

A convicted felon, Scott spent seven years in a federal prison on drug charges. In 2013, then-Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) restored the voting rights for convicted felons who were deemed to be ‘non-violent’. This included Don Scott. After his 2002 release, Scott began practicing law, passing the Virginia Bar, and specializing in car accidents and product liability.

Scott was also arrested at a Denny’s restaurant in 1994 during his time at Louisiana State University. He had several thousand dollars in drug money on him at the time and was apprehended attempting to dispose of it in the restroom.

Shortly after this arrest, Scott was released, only to be arrested again several weeks later by federal agents at LSU. He later pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine.

The election of Don Scott as Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates marks a new low for the Democratic Party. Like Scott, several other state-level progressive Democrats have worked to bar Trump from their states’ primary ballots. Thus far only the efforts in Maine and Colorado have borne fruit, and the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to reverse these decisions in February.

show less
Virginia's first black Speaker of the House of Delegates, Don Scott, says Donald Trump should not be allowed on the Commonwealth's primary ballot for the 2024 presidential election. However, Scott's reason for wanting to bar Trump differs from his colleagues who have pursued ballot bans in other states. show more

More Far-Left Activists Team Up to Keep Trump Off the Ballot. This Time in Illinois.

A small group of Illinois voters, backed by the the leftist law-fare nonprofit ‘Free Speech for People’, has filed a petition with the state board of elections asking that former President Donald Trump be removed from the Republican primary ballot. The petition claims the former Republican president is barred from office under the ‘insurrection’ clause found in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Democrat operatives have pushed the ‘insurrection’ clause claim in several states with mixed results. The Colorado Supreme Court recently ruled that Trump is ineligible to run for President, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, however both the Minnesota and Michigan supreme courts threw out similar cases. The United States Supreme Court is widely expected to step in and overturn the Colorado decision.

The Petitioners.

The petitioners include a far-left professor of English & Latin American and Latino Studies to a local Chicago lawyer. One of the petitioners, Prof. Ralph Cintrón of the University of Illinois Chicago, has a long track record of far-left work — especially pertaining to mass immigration. Speaking at Penn State last year, Prof. Cintrón lamented the lack of representation for illegal immigrants in America. Steven Daniel Anderson, Charles J. Holley, Jack L Hickman, and Darryl P. Baker joined Cintrón in signing the petition.

The petitioners are being represented by Chicago civil rights and constitutional law attorney Matthew Piers, president of Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. Piers is a prolific donor to Democrat candidates across the country. A review of Federal Election Commission records reveals he frequently makes significant contributions to far-left progressives, including Rep. Chuy García (D-IL), former Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX), Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-IL). He also donated to the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

Free Speech for People.

Based in Amherst, Massachusetts, Free Speech for People is a leftist law-fare group founded by John Bonifaz — a long time voting rights activist and political progressive. According to their IRS 990 filings, Free Speech for People had a total revenue of just over $1.5 million in 2021. In 2020, the group’s revenue was double at just over $3 million. According to the left-wing legal advocacy group’s annual reports, its 2021 budget was raised through funds from the Arkay Foundation, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, CREDO, The Fred Gellert Family Foundation, the Gaia Fund, The Kohlberg Foundation, the Lisa and Douglas Goldman Fund, the Park Foundation, Ralph E. Ogden Foundation, the Threshold Foundation, and the WhyNot Initiative.

show less
A small group of Illinois voters, backed by the the leftist law-fare nonprofit 'Free Speech for People', has filed a petition with the state board of elections asking that former President Donald Trump be removed from the Republican primary ballot. The petition claims the former Republican president is barred from office under the 'insurrection' clause found in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. show more

‘Louisiana Woman’ Suing to Keep Trump Off Ballot is Self-Described ‘Neo-Communist’ & Democrat Party Operative.

A Louisiana woman has filed a state lawsuit with the goal of kicking Donald Trump off the state’s March 23rd Republican presidential ballot. Presented simply as a Louisiana citizen by establishment news outlets, Ashley Reeb is, in fact, a self-described “neocommunist” and member of  St. Bernard Parish Democrat Executive Committee.

Reeb’s lawsuit, filed on December 22nd, claims: “Both Trump’s actions (engaging in insurrection) as well as his inaction (giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists) on Jan. 6, 2021, disqualify him from holding any office of/under the United States.” Ms. Reeb’s legal claims echo those dismissed by state supreme courts in Minnesota and Michigan.

According to her LinkedIn profile, Ms. Reeb works as seasonal staff with the The New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival and Foundation, Inc. From 1999 to 2005 she served as a part-time Administrative File Clerk with the Louisiana National Guard, and as a Deputy with the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff’s Office from 2001 to 2003.

An examination of Ms. Reeb’s social media account on X (formerly Twitter) reveals she is a follower and reposter of a whose-who of ‘ResistanceLib’ accounts. Reeb herself has pushed the debunked Russiagate conspiracy theory as recently as August 21st, 2023. In addition, she has posted pro-Hamas propaganda on her Facebook page, claiming Israeli hostages were well treated by their Hamas terrorist captors and even ‘thanked’ them – with additional claims it is Israelis who have engaged in mass kidnappings of Palestinians. According to local reports, Ms. Reeb flies both a transgender flag and a Black Lives Matter flag outside her home.

show less
A Louisiana woman has filed a state lawsuit with the goal of kicking Donald Trump off the state's March 23rd Republican presidential ballot. Presented simply as a Louisiana citizen by establishment news outlets, Ashley Reeb is, in fact, a self-described "neocommunist" and member of  St. Bernard Parish Democrat Executive Committee. show more

WINNING: Michigan Supreme Court Rejects Trump Ballot Ban Case Brought by Soros, Hamas-Linked Group.

Michigan’s Supreme Court has ruled against petitioners seeking to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot. “Free Speech For People”, a group who ostensibly filed the lawsuit on behalf of a group of Michigan voters, argued Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars Trump for holding elected office – alleging Trump had lead an insurrection against the United States on January 6th, 2021.

Free Speech For People is a far-left group funded by George Soros’s fund, the Rockefeller Family Fund, the climate alarmism lobby, and the Hamas-linked Tides Foundation.

With dueling rulings from the Michigan and Colorado State Supreme Courts, the urgency for the United States Supreme Court to settle the matter has only increased. It is expected the legal team for former President Trump will appeal the Colorado ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court this week.

Unlike Colorado, Michigan does not have a provision in their state election law requiring a presidential candidate to present their qualifications for holding office. Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote the petitioners “…have identified no analogous provision in the Michigan Election Law that requires someone seeking the office of President of the United States to attest to their legal qualification to hold the office.”

Prior to the state’s Supreme Court order, the Michigan Court of Claims and Michigan Court of Appeals held: “At the moment, the only event about to occur is the presidential primary election. But as explained, whether Trump is disqualified is irrelevant to his placement on that particular ballot.”

show less
Michigan's Supreme Court has ruled against petitioners seeking to remove former President Donald Trump from the state's 2024 primary ballot. "Free Speech For People", a group who ostensibly filed the lawsuit on behalf of a group of Michigan voters, argued Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars Trump for holding elected office – alleging Trump had lead an insurrection against the United States on January 6th, 2021. show more

Editor’s Notes

Behind-the-scenes political intrigue exclusively for Pulse+ subscribers.

RAHEEM J. KASSAM Editor-in-Chief
The lists of who is funding these groups is both predictable and amazing
The lists of who is funding these groups is both predictable and amazing show more
for exclusive members-only insights

PROFILES: A Gay Hispanic, A Watergate Prosecutor’s Granddaughter, & Links to Clinton & Obama: Colorado’s Supreme Court Justices Who Kicked Trump off the Ballot.

Yesterday, four of Colorado’s seven state Supreme Court justices ruled to remove former President Donald Trump from the Rocky Mountain state’s 2024 ballot. Justices Monica Márquez, William W. Hood III, Richard L. Gabriel, and Melissa Hart all held the former President had instigated an insurrection against the United States and was therefore constitutionally disqualified from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The three other justices, including Chief Justice Brian Boatright, all dissented from the radical opinion.

In late 2020, the Colorado judicial system was rocked by accusations of sexual harassment against female court employees. State law, however, shields judges from public discipline – with detailed accusations rarely becoming public unless they are part of a public court hearing. We do know between 2010 and 2019, Colorado judges were disciplined 51 times for offenses ranging from failing to issue timely rulings to engaging in sexual relations with court employees. The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline hears, on average, 200 complains against judicial officials a year, with 90-percent being dismissed.

Justice Monica Márquez: The LGBT Latina.

Judge Monica Márquez – as well as her three colleagues who joined her in kicking Trump off the Colorado ballot – is a graduate of an elite American law school. She attained her undergraduate degree from Stanford University and her Juris Doctorate (JD) from Yale University’s law school.

Márquez’s appointment to the Colorado Supreme Court made her both the first woman of Hispanic-heritage and first gay person to serve on the state’s high court. A dyed-in-the-wool progressive, she was appointed by Democrat Governor Bill Ritter, Jr in 2010 – after spending much of her early career engaged in gay-and-lesbian issues in the state.

Prior to her appointment, Márquez served as president of the Colorado LGBT Bar Association and on the Denver mayor’s LGBT Commission. While she has been less politically active as a member of the state’s judiciary, in 2008 Márquez did make several small contributions to then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s ultimately victorious campaign for President of the United States.

Justice William W. Hood III: The Obama Connection.

Unlike his colleague, Justice Márquez, judge William W. Hood III wasn’t an active political donor prior to joining the bench in early 2014. Appointed by then-Governor John Hickenlooper – who now serves as the junior Democrat Senator for Colorado – Hood received his JD from the University of Virginia School of Law. When the Colorado Supreme Court accepted the resignation of Arapahoe County judge Natalie Chase, and censured her for exhibiting racial bias, Justice Hood noted the censure did not mean all of the judge’s rulings were invalid. “Only when a judge was actually biased will we question the reliability of the proceeding’s result,” Hood said at the time, upholding a prior Judge Chase ruling in a parental rights case.

Prior to becoming a judge, Hood worked at Isaacson Rosenbaum, a legal firm which served as counsel to the Democratic National Committee during the August 2008 convention at which Barack Obama was nominated as presidential candidate.

Justice Richard L. Gabriel: Accused of Sexual Harassment

From Brooklyn New York, Gabriel is another Ivy League graduate, receiving his JD from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Gabriel is described as “instrumental in representing” music industry corporates against digital file sharers in the early 2000s. After his 2015 appointment to the state supreme court by then-Gov. Hickenlooper, Justice Gabriel was accused of work-place sexual harassment. Between 2000 and 2007, Gabriel was a frequent donor to the Colorado Democrat Party, as well as Democrat candidates for office. After his appointment to the Colorado Court of Appeals by Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter in 2008, Gabriel’s political activity ceased.

Justice Melissa Hart: The Watergate Connection.

The final of the four justices to rule against Trump is Melissa Hart, the granddaughter of Democrat attorney and Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox. Hart clerked for Clinton appointee Guido Calabresi, and both her and Gabriel were named in a 2018 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint filed by Michele Brown – a black woman who was over the age of 60 at the time. Brown alleged she was passed over for employment with the court by a six-person hiring committee – including both Gabriel and Hart – in favor of a younger, less experienced white woman. The case brought by Brown was ultimately dismissed.

Like her colleagues, Hart is also a graduate of an elite law school, receiving her JD from Harvard University. She was appointed to the high court in 2017 by then-Gov. Hickenlooper. Prior to her appointment, Hart had made several contributions to Democrat candidates over the years, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns.

The Dissenting Justices.

All three of the Colorado Supreme Court dissenters, Chief Justice Brian Boatright, Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter, and Justice Carlos Samour are graduates of the University of Denver School of Law. The divide between the justices when viewed through their education background suggests the four who ruled to remove Trump from the ballot were perhaps influenced by a more activist judicial tradition found in America’s elite, Ivy League institutions.

When asked on Wednesday if he believed former President Trump was an ‘insurrectionist’ and if he agreed with the Colorado decision, President Joe Biden said it is self-evident, adding “You saw it all. He continued: “Now whether the 14th Amendment applies, I’ll let the court make that decision. But he certainly supported an insurrection. There’s no question about it. None. Zero.”

The United States Supreme Court is likely to make a swift ruling in the Colorado ballot case – the state’s primary ballots are set to be certified on January 5th, 2024. If the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision does indeed go into effect, the Colorado Republican Party has said it will abandon the state-run primary and opt for a Party run caucus to select the GOP presidential nominee instead.

Raheem J. Kassam contributed to this report.

show less
Yesterday, four of Colorado's seven state Supreme Court justices ruled to remove former President Donald Trump from the Rocky Mountain state's 2024 ballot. Justices Monica Márquez, William W. Hood III, Richard L. Gabriel, and Melissa Hart all held the former President had instigated an insurrection against the United States and was therefore constitutionally disqualified from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The three other justices, including Chief Justice Brian Boatright, all dissented from the radical opinion. show more
desantis donors

DeSantis Refuses to Withdraw from CO Primary if Trump is Disqualified.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said he will not remove his name form the Colorado ballot if the Colorado Supreme Court‘s order to remove former President Trump’s name is upheld. DeSantis’s fellow Republican presidential primary candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, challenged DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley to join him removing his name should Trump’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court fail.

Ramaswamy stated, “I pledge to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary ballot until Trump is also allowed to be on the ballot,” before adding, “I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley do the same immediately.”

RON’S RESPONSE.

“No, I think that’s just playing in to the left,” DeSantis said in an interview on Newsmax earlier today. “I think the case will get overturned by the [U.S.] Supreme Court.” He continued: “I’ve qualified for all of the ballots, I’m competing in all of the states. And I’m going to accumulate the delegates necessary.” At no point did the Florida Governor actually condemn the judicial overreach and anti-democratic ruling by the Colorado justices.

Late last night in a post on X (formerly Twitter), DeSantis’s campaign account was slightly more forceful, stating: “The Left invokes ‘democracy’ to justify its use of power, even if it means abusing judicial power to remove a candidate from the ballot based on spurious legal grounds. SCOTUS should reverse.” Again, however, the Governor fell short of the vocal condemnations made by other Republican officials.

CHRISTIE’S COMMENTS.

Chris Christie, one of Trump’s harshest critics in the Republican primary, emphatically stated, “I do not believe Donald Trump should be prevented  from being President of the United States by any court.” He continued: “I don’t believe it is good for our country if he’s precluded from the ballot by a court.” Regarding the insurrection charge, Christie was blunt, stating there has been no trial convicting Trump of insurrection.

BIRDBRAIN’S BLUSTER.

Speaking to reporters in Iowa, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley gave an equally feckless answer as DeSantis. “I will tell you that I don’t think Donald Trump needs to be president. I think I need to be president. I think that’s good for the country,” responded Haley. She added, “But I will beat him fair and square. We don’t need to have judges making these decisions, we need voters to make these decisions.”

show less
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said he will not remove his name form the Colorado ballot if the Colorado Supreme Court's order to remove former President Trump's name is upheld. DeSantis's fellow Republican presidential primary candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, challenged DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley to join him removing his name should Trump's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court fail. show more

16 States Have Colorado-Style Lawfare Campaigns to Remove Trump from The Ballot.

Colorado, where the state Supreme Court has narrowly decided to remove Donald Trump from the GOP primary ballot, is not alone in seeing efforts to stop the American people from deciding whether or not to reelect the 45th President. Sixteen states are now processing lawsuits seeking to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, designed to keep Confederates charged with insurrection and rebellion out of high office, to shut the MAGA kingpin out of the democratic process.

Michigan, Oregon, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, are dealing with 14th Amendment cases in their state courts. Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, New York, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming have lawsuits pending in federal district courts.

Cases against the former president have already been dismissed in Arizona and Michigan, but are being appealed. A case in Maine will be heard by the Secretary of State in the coming days, due to quirks of state law.

California Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis has also instructed Secretary of State Shirley Weber to “explore every legal option” to stop Trump from appearing on the presidential primary ballot in the Golden State.

The Colorado ruling was controversial even among the exclusively Democrat-appointed justices of the Centennial State’s top court. Chief Justice Brian Boatright, Justice Maria Berkenkotter, and Justice Carlos Samour all voted against Trump’s removal from the ballot, with Justice Samour warning the former president had been denied a fair trial and due process.

show less
Colorado, where the state Supreme Court has narrowly decided to remove Donald Trump from the GOP primary ballot, is not alone in seeing efforts to stop the American people from deciding whether or not to reelect the 45th President. Sixteen states are now processing lawsuits seeking to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, designed to keep Confederates charged with insurrection and rebellion out of high office, to shut the MAGA kingpin out of the democratic process. show more