Colorado Judge in Trump Case Refuses to Recuse Amid Criticism
On the first day of a highly anticipated hearing to determine whether former President Donald Trump is eligible to appear on Colorado's 2024 presidential primary ballot, a Denver District Court judge rejected Trump's request to recuse herself.
Judge Sarah B. Wallace, who was appointed by Democratic Governor Jared Polis in August of 2022, dismissed the motion as nothing more than an attempt by Trump's opponents to undermine his constitutional rights.
Laura Ingraham (Fox News)
The controversy began on Saturday, when Trump's attorney, Scott Gessler, filed a motion seeking Wallace's recusal based on a $100 donation she made to a liberal organization prior to taking the bench. According to Gessler, the Colorado Turnout Project is a radical group that supports punishing Republicans for refusing to condemn the Trump supporters who peacefully protested at the Capitol on January 6th.
"This shows clear bias on the judge's part and calls into question her ability to fairly preside over this case," Gessler stated in his motion. "A contribution to the Colorado Turnout Project is a clear sign of support for the view that January 6th was an 'insurrection', a false narrative pushed by the left to demonize Trump and his supporters."
Wallace, however, showed no signs of wavering.
At the start of the hearing on Monday, she firmly rejected Trump's motion, stating, "Prior to yesterday, I was not cognizant of this organization or its mission. It has always been my practice to make contributions to individuals, not political action committees."
The judge also asserted that she has not formed any opinions on the issue at hand - whether or not Trump engaged in an insurrection and is therefore ineligible for office under the 14th Amendment - and is committed to remaining impartial throughout the case.
Despite this, Trump's opponents were quick to point out that Wallace's $100 donation to the Colorado Turnout Project is just one of many contributions she has made to Democratic candidates over the years, including high-profile officials involved in this very case.
Lawyers for the petitioners, a group of four Republicans and two unaffiliated voters, defended Wallace's donations, arguing that the rules against political contributions only apply to judges and judicial candidates, which Wallace was not at the time of her donation.
But the timing of her contribution raises questions. As Gov. Polis announced her appointment in August, Wallace was clearly aware she would soon be a judge. This has led some to question her impartiality and potential bias against Trump.
"Judge Wallace's political leanings and contributions to Democratic candidates call into question her ability to preside over this case fairly," Trump's team argued in their motion.
Despite all this, Judge Wallace's decision to stay on the case has raised concerns over the standard for recusal in the code of judicial conduct, which directs judges to recuse themselves if their impartiality "might reasonably be questioned." According to the Colorado Supreme Court, even if there is an appearance of impropriety, the outcome of the case will not be questioned unless there is evidence of actual bias.
As the hearing continues throughout the week, all eyes will be on Judge Wallace and her ability to remain unbiased in the face of political pressure.
The petitioners are asking her to bar Secretary of State Jena Griswold from including Trump on next year's ballot, claiming that his behavior on January 6th meets the qualifying criteria for an "insurrection" under the 14th Amendment. Trump's legal team, on the other hand, argues that his actions were protected under the First Amendment.
READ MORE:
HISTORIC EFFORT TO KEEP TRUMP OFF THE BALLOT BEGINS IN DENVER
HEARINGS BEGIN IN DENVER AS TRUMP CRITICS ATTEMPT TO KICK HIM OFF BALLOTS
The case, Anderson et al. v. Griswold, will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for the 2024 election.
For now, Judge Wallace's refusal to give in to liberal pressure and her commitment to upholding the principles of fairness and impartiality in the courtroom are a breath of fresh air in today's divisive political climate.