A judge, seconds ago, just ruling on whether former President Trump should be kicked off the ballot in the state of Colorado. Judge Sarah Rallis deciding that Trump is eligible to run for President even after his role in the January sixth insurrection. A group of voters had filed a lawsuit, and this was based specifically on the 14th Amendment. They argued that that amendment would bar Trump from federal office. A judge, though, ruling the other way, as I said just seconds ago, a team of reporters standing by to go through the details on this breaking news as we get it. Lucy Kaffinov is out front in Denver. Evan Perez is in Washington. And Evan, as I said seconds ago, I haven't had a chance to read 102 pages. You've had a chance to see a little bit more of it than I have. But what do we need to know?

The bottom line, Aaron, is that Judge Sarah Wallace, is ordering that Donald Trump's name will appear on the ballot in Colorado. This is a ruling that she just came down. The bottom line for the judge is that the 14th Amendment, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which is what these voters were seeking to have enforced, the judge is saying it's not clear that this applies to the President of the United States or that this President of the United States is covered by that section of the 14th Amendment. It's not clear that the framing, the writers of that section of the Constitution, intended for that to apply to the President of the United States. I'll read you just a part of what the 14th Amendment says. It says that anyone who previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer in the United States or as an executive and a 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 is disqualified from holding office. That's what these voters were seeking to have enforced, to have the former president struck from the ballot in Colorado.

The judge says that really she can't really enforce that because it's clear to her that if the frameworks of the Constitution had intended for that to apply to a President of the United States, then they would have made that much clearer. In her view, it does not apply, and therefore the former President will appear on the Colorado ballot. Now this is in line, we should say, with some other challenges that have come forward. There are voters who have brought similar challenges in Minnesota, in Michigan. Another French candidate had brought a federal lawsuit in New Hampshire. All of these had been tossed aside for exactly this reason. It's not clear that you can bar the former President of the United States simply because of what happened on January sixth and the accusations of his involvement in inspiring what happened on January sixth, Aaron.

We're going to have a lot more to talk about this because, of course, you lay out that logic. Of course, it is on a certain level. So others could be barred, but not the President of the United States. That's confusing. I think all could see that. But there's a lot to get through here. As Evan said, it's 102 pages. So as Evan continues to go through this, understand the logic on this, that this is a significant case because people had been watching Colorado so very closely on this specific one. This was a crucial test. I want to go now to Lucy Kaffinough. She's in Colorado and she's outside the court. Lucy, what are you hearing?

Well, obviously all eyes have been on Colorado where this electoral drama had been playing out at the courthouse behind me minutes ago, as my colleague just pointed out. Judge Wallace ordered the Colorado Secretary of state to place the former President on the Colorado primary ballot next year when it verifies the ballot on January fifth. Now this lawsuit was filed by six Colorado voters, four Republicans and two unaffiliated. It was with the help of the watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. In court, they effectively argued that Trump had engaged in an insurrection by inciting a violent mob to attack the US Capitol on January sixth in order to stop the peaceful transfer of power, which they argued makes the GOP front runner ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment. Trump's attorney, also a former Colorado Secretary of state, pardon me, Scott Gessler. He had argued that not only does January sixth not qualify as an insurrection, but he also argued that there is no evidence that Trump intended to incite violence. He suggested that the lawsuit amounts to election interference. We have been speaking to voters on the ground who are largely split along party lines in understandable ways.

Republicans thinking this is election interference. Democrats supporting keeping Trump off the ballot. But we had heard arguments from some Democratic voters that given how divided the climate in this country is, perhaps using the legal system as opposed to the ballot box is not the most effective way to have folks weigh in on whether Trump should be in office, Aaron. All right.