In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" respondent Anderson et al. claims that Supreme Court of Colorado in "Anderson v Griswold" missed statutory deadlines for hearing to be held because Trump himself asked the hearing to be held after the deadline or agreed to waive the deadline

  • Claim


Name

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" respondent Anderson et al. claims that Supreme Court of Colorado in "Anderson v Griswold" missed statutory deadlines for hearing to be held because Trump himself asked the hearing to be held after the deadline or agreed to waive the deadline

Types

Claim

Broader claims

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" respondent Anderson et al. claims that US Supreme Court should not review Trump’s claim that Colorado Supreme Court’s in "Anderson v Griswold" ruling somehow violated the Electors Clause

Opposing arguments

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" Donald Trump claims that Colorado state district court in case "Anders vs Griswold" missed the statutory procedural deadlines

Quotes that support the claim

Trump notes that “[t]he district court did not . . . hold a hearing within five days of the filing” of the initial petition as required by COLO. REV. STAT. §1-4-1204(4). Pet. 8. Trump neglects to mention that this delay was his own doing. The Anderson Respondents made clear from the outset they were prepared to try the case within five days. They said as much in a motion for expedited hearing they filed the day after filing the petition. Second Supp. App. 3a.1 At the initial status conference, the Anderson Respondents again stated they were prepared for trial and requested a hearing as soon as possible. It was Trump who asked that the trial court set a hearing date no earlier than November 2023.
Second, Trump claims that the district court did not issue its decision within 48 hours of the hearing as required by COLO. REV. STAT. § 1-4-1204(4). Pet. 9. That is wrong. After the close of evidence on November 3, 2023, the trial court continued the hearing until November 15, 2023, when it held closing arguments and closed the hearing. Pet. App. 16a, 9c.2. The trial court issued its decision within 48 hours, on November 17, 2023. Id. at 16a, 1c. And once again, Trump never objected to this procedure in the trial court, even though the trial court specifically asked the parties in advance to advise it whether this process would satisfy state law. Second Supp. App. 14a–15a. Instead, all parties (including Trump) advised the trial court that they either believed the 48-hour requirement did not apply or that it was waivable and that they would waive it.

Referenced by

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" Donald Trump claims that Colorado state district court in case "Anders vs Griswold" missed the statutory procedural deadlines

US Politics

Claim

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" respondent Anderson et al. claims that US Supreme Court should not review Trump’s claim that Colorado Supreme Court’s in "Anderson v Griswold" ruling somehow violated the Electors Clause

US Politics

Claim

Trump notes that “[t]he district court did not . . . hold a hearing within five days of the filing” of the initial petition as required by COLO. REV. STAT. §1-4-1204(4). Pet. 8. Trump neglects to mention that this delay was his own doing. The Anderson Respondents made clear from the outset they were prepared to try the case within five days. They said as much in a motion for expedited hearing they filed the day after filing the petition. Second Supp. App. 3a.1 At the initial status conference, the Anderson Respondents again stated they were prepared for trial and requested a hearing as soon as possible. It was Trump who asked that the trial court set a hearing date no earlier than November 2023.

US Politics

Quote