Tuesday’s Colorado Supreme Court decision to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the state’s Republican primary is a lot more important than it might seem.

The historic and controversial move is not just the best hope for thwarting his otherwise inevitable nomination. It also adds to the argument for state-run presidential primaries, which we have yet to institute here in Hawaii.

The court determined that Trump is ineligible to run for president in 2024 due to his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. The court’s rationale hinges on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which disqualifies anyone who has taken an oath to support the Constitution from holding federal office if they then engaged, either directly or indirectly by providing “aid or comfort,” in “insurrection or rebellion.”

Obviously, the legal battle is far from over. The immediate impact of the decision is confined to Colorado’s Republican primary, but if Trump appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case, the stakes will get higher. Section 3 challenges have been filed in over 30 states, and while some states have already dismissed the lawsuit, it seems likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will see fit to bring a national resolution to the 14th Amendment issue.

A Long Shot, But Not Impossible

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, its decision isn’t a foregone conclusion.

In August, conservative constitutional scholars William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas published an article making a strong argument for barring Trump, utilizing the same originalist approach to constitutional interpretation favored by Trump’s Supreme Court appointees.

The argument against Trump has also been supported by Steven G. Calabresi, a founder of the conservative Federalist Society which includes at least five of the court’s conservatives on its membership roster.

It’s still a long shot, but the case has a much better chance of keeping Trump off the ballot than any of his current Republican challengers do. If it works, state parties — including the Hawaii Republican Party — could find their nomination processes thrown into chaos.

On Jan. 5, Colorado will print the ballots for its presidential primary. If the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t act on a Trump appeal before that date, the ballots will be printed with Trump’s name. If Trump chooses not to appeal or the court doesn’t overturn the ruling, the ballots will be printed without it.

Many other states are facing a similar timeline, and there is a strong chance that ballots will be printed, delivered, and maybe even cast for Trump before anyone knows for sure if he can legally appear on the 2024 general election ballot.

States with a legislated, state-run primary can more easily course-correct if they need to remove Trump from their already distributed ballots or if he’s disqualified after the state has already voted for him. Those states could face significant administrative expenses, but most of them will already have legal guidance available to achieve a new, fair and open election process.

States like Hawaii that do not have a legislated, state-run presidential primary system will face greater challenges.

The Hawaii Republican Party could very well nominate Trump and then scramble to pick a new nominee if he’s disqualified from the ballot.

In the wake of Tuesday’s ruling, Colorado Republicans are threatening to withdraw from the state-run primary and select their nominee through a caucus process instead.

Unlike a primary, party-run caucuses are only governed by internal party rules so, in theory, they could nominate whoever they want in whatever way they want to. But their primary is enshrined in law so Colorado Republicans will face legal challenges if they attempt to circumvent it or nominate Trump despite the court’s ruling. If this case had happened in Hawaii, we wouldn’t have that safeguard.

In the 2023 session, Hawaii legislators considered two bills to move Hawaii from a party-run nomination process to a state-run presidential primary system. Those bills failed, in part, because administrating another election would be expensive for the state. But what’s happening in Colorado gives us good reason to reconsider those measures.

Shoring Up Confidence In Elections

State-run primaries have election protections mandated by law. They make sure that rogue actors who favor a particular candidate can’t add ineligible candidates to the ballot. They ensure people have factual information about the voting process and access to vote. They can guarantee ballot secrecy and transparent vote counting.

A party-run process relies on the party itself to set and enforce these standards.

As citizens’ trust in the electoral process continues to decline, we should be doing more to shore up their confidence in how we elect our leaders. Legislating the presidential nomination process through an elected, democratic body would create a stronger system that’s more resilient to doubt than our current system that’s run by private membership organizations.

Under our current system, the Hawaii Republican Party could very well nominate Trump and then scramble to pick a new nominee if he’s disqualified from the ballot. That new process will be decided entirely by party leaders who have no legal duty to follow the voter access and election safeguard requirements that state election administrators need to consider.

Unfortunately, the Legislature will adjourn long after the party makes its choice, so adopting a presidential primary system in the 2024 session won’t impact this year’s nomination process. But the current debate in Colorado and likely in the U.S. Supreme Court is an important reminder that we can’t sleep on these issues.