Colorado officials say their plan to import cheaper medicines from Canada has been stymied by opposition from drugmakers and inaction by the Biden administration, according to a state report obtained by KFF Health News.

The Dec. 1 report, prepared for the state legislature by Colorado’s Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, says that state officials approached 23 drugmakers in the last year about an importation program. Only four agreed even to discuss the proposal; none expressed interest in participating.

“Generally, the challenges that remain are outside state authority and rely on action by FDA and/or drug manufacturers,” the report reads.

Lawmakers in both parties, at the state and national level, have sought for decades to legalize importing drugs from Canada. Since 2020, when President Donald Trump’s administration opened the door to Canadian drug imports with regulations issued just weeks before he lost reelection, only a few states have filed applications with the Food and Drug Administration to create importation programs.

The FDA hasn’t yet ruled on any of them. Colorado filed its application in December 2022. Florida, which applied in 2020, has been waiting nearly three years for a decision from the Biden administration on its importation plan, pushed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, now a Republican presidential candidate.

FDA spokesperson Cherie Duvall-Jones said the FDA has not acted on states’ importation applications because it has not determined whether they would save significant money for consumers without posing risks to public health.

U.S. consumers pay some of the highest prices in the world for brand-name pharmaceuticals. Drugs are generally less expensive in Canada, where the government controls prices.

Under Trump, the federal government declared that importing drugs from Canada could be done safely — satisfying for the first time a condition spelled out in a 2003 law.

But Colorado officials cited another catch: The rule didn’t take into account that states would have to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers, which oppose selling their brand-name drugs in the United States at Canadian prices.

“As the federal Final Rule did not contemplate the need for this negotiation step, we have urged FDA to release further guidance regarding how states can operationalize the program with this in mind, but to date, no guidance has been released,” the Colorado report said.

Unlike many other Trump administration health policies, Biden hasn’t revoked or revised the importation rule. But his administration hasn’t shown much support for the idea, either. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told KFF Health News last December that he wouldn’t commit to the FDA ruling on any state application in 2023.

The president has repeatedly suggested that under his watch Americans would be able to import drugs from Canada.

During his 2020 campaign, Biden said he’d allow for the importation of drugs the government certified as safe. In 2021, he ordered the FDA to work with states to import prescription drugs from Canada. In a 2022 speech about how he planned to reduce drug prices, he cited Colorado estimates of how much people in the state could save through importation.

FDA officials responded to Colorado’s application in March by asking for more information and a smaller list of drugs to target, to prove that importation could save money. Colorado’s initial application listed 112 high-cost drugs. The state estimates residents and employers could save an average of 65% on the costs of those medicines, including drugs for diabetes, asthma, and cancer.

Colorado said it plans to submit an updated application early next year. By then, it’s possible the FDA will have ruled on Florida’s application.

The Colorado and Florida importation proposals differ. Colorado’s program is intended to directly help consumers obtain cheaper medicines. Florida’s plan aims to cut spending on drugs in government programs such as Medicaid, the prison system, and facilities run by the state Department of Children and Families.

The drug industry has argued the Trump administration didn’t properly certify that drugs imported from Canada would be safe, jeopardizing Americans’ health. Canada’s government, too, has expressed concern that U.S. imports would lead to shortages and higher prices in its country.

Drug manufacturers “will do anything to protect their golden goose that is United States consumers and patients who pay the largest amount for drugs in the world,” said Colorado state Sen. Sonya Jaquez Lewis, a Democrat, pharmacist, and leading advocate for drug importation.

The White House and Congress, she said, should force drugmakers to negotiate with states to start importation programs.

In its initial response to Colorado’s application, the FDA listed several types of information it still needed, including plans on labeling and drug eligibility, according to a March letter from the FDA to the state. Another problem, the FDA said: The state planned to import medicines across the U.S. border in Buffalo, New York. The FDA said the only port of entry it allows for medicines is in Detroit.

Colorado officials told the FDA in March that without federal approval of its application, it was having difficulty securing commitments from drug manufacturers to obtain medicines.

“It has been made clear that potential partners will be more interested in committing to participate once our program has been approved by the FDA,” Kim Bimestefer, executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, wrote to the FDA.

“While we understand the regulatory framework does not permit for a provisional approval, we know that showing progress towards an approved program will aid in our negotiations with drug manufacturers,” she added.

Another complication is that the FDA’s rule doesn’t allow states to buy drugs directly from secondary drug wholesalers. Instead, they must purchase medicines directly from manufacturers, said Marc Williams, a spokesperson for the Colorado agency.

That’s proven challenging because drug manufacturers have prohibited the export of products intended for sale in Canada to the U.S., Williams said.

“Without their permission and a supply agreement directly with a manufacturer, Colorado is unable to buy and import these lower-priced drugs that would save people money,” he said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF–an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get health news sent straight to your inbox.

With the Iowa caucuses rapidly approaching, a shrinking field of Republican White House hopefuls gathered Wednesday in Alabama for the fourth presidential debate.

As usual, former President Donald Trump, who is dominating the GOP primary, didn’t appear. Instead, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, businessman Vivek Ramaswamy and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie continued their effort to gain a sliver of the spotlight in the race.

Here are some takeaways from the final primary debate of 2023.

The front-runner in the Republican primary has no end of vulnerabilities. He faces 91 criminal charges and just the night before repeatedly refused to rule out abusing power if he returns to office.

But, as has been the pattern, Trump was ignored during much of the debate. There was one great exception in the second hour, when the moderators asked Christie about Trump. The onetime New Jersey governor complained that his three primary rivals have been silent about the threats Trump presents to democracy.

“You want to know why these poll numbers are where they are?” Christie asked. “Because folks like these three people on this stage want to make it seem like his conduct is acceptable.”

Christie then began jousting with DeSantis, who confined his criticism of Trump to the former president’s age and failure to achieve all of his agenda in his first term. “Is he fit to be president or isn’t he?” Christie asked. “Is he fit? Ron, Ron? He’s afraid to answer.”

Ramaswamy accused his rivals of all “licking Donald Trump’s boots,” but then proceeded to argue the Jan. 6,2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol was an “inside job” — hardly distancing himself from the former president and his penchant for lies and misinformation.

Ramaswamy has been particularly adept at pulling fire away from Trump. The 38-year-old political novice and pharmaceutical entrepreneur has specialized in grating, personal attacks that his rivals just can’t bring themselves to ignore.

On Wednesday, he challenged Haley to name three Ukrainian provinces that he claimed his 3-year-old could identify, and Christie, who had tried to launch an attack on Trump to open the debate, exploded.

“All he knows how to do is insult good people who have committed their lives to public service,” Christie said.

Minutes later, Haley took an unusual swing at Trump for failing to go further than simple trade actions against China. But DeSantis jumped in, attacking Haley for her relationship with China. The two Republicans began snapping at each other, leaving Trump unmentioned.

By the end, the moderators asked the candidates which previous president inspired them. No one named Trump.

Haley was under attack from the opening seconds of the debate. And it didn’t let up for almost 20 minutes, a clear reminder that the former United Nations ambassador’s opponents see her as a growing threat in the race.

DeSantis amped up the pressure as he answered the debate’s opening question, which was about his struggling campaign.

“You have other candidates up here, like Nikki Haley, she caves every time the left comes after her,” DeSantis said, casting himself as a fighter.

The Florida governor then seized on Haley’s recent support from Wall Street and at least one major Democratic donor. Ramaswamy soon joined in, highlighting the personal wealth Haley accumulated since leaving the public office.

“That math doesn’t add up,” Ramaswamy charged. “It adds up to the fact you’re corrupt.” Minutes later, Ramaswamy called Haley a fascist.

Haley defended herself aggressively. But as the political adage goes, if you’re explaining, you’re probably losing.

“I love all the attention, fellas, thank you,” she said.

And she drew some applause from the crowd when she pushed back against the criticism of her political donations.

“In terms of these donors that are supporting me, they’re just jealous. They wish they were supporting them,” she said.

Christie has faced questions about why he’s not dropping his struggling campaign and backing Haley, who shares many of his more moderate views. While he’s not showing any sign of leaving soon, he took the opportunity to defend Haley, particularly from Ramaswamy’s heated critiques.

“This is a smart, accomplished woman,” Christie told Ramaswamy during an animated exchange. “You should stop insulting her.”

One candidate was attacked for sitting on a corporate board and being too close to big business. Others fretted about a plot by giant firms to re-engineer the country’s politics — and then one said he wants to gut government regulations to free up business.

This wasn’t a Democratic debate, dominated by that party’s skepticism of corporate titans. The Republican party in the era of Trump is a lot more conflicted about business and industry than in its prior, free-market form.

That was obvious from the first set of questions aimed at Haley, who was asked whether her roles on corporate boards and donations from major companies would sit well with the party’s “working-class voters.”

DeSantis and Ramaswamy continued to hit Haley over that dynamic, even as Haley quipped they were just “jealous” of her donor support. DeSantis also claimed Haley wanted to let in as many immigrants as “the corporations” desired and boasted about how he withdrew $2 billion of Florida public pension money from a hedge fund over its use of environmental, social and corporate governance.

“They want to use economic power to impose a left-wing agenda in this country,” DeSantis said of some corporations’ embrace of ESG, an effort to use progressive principles in investing.

But then Ramaswamy bemoaned the way the government doesn’t fully recognize cryptocurrencies as a real financial instrument, and segued into promising to eliminate three-quarters of the government bureaucrats to cut regulations. That is a routine promise of Ramaswamy’s, and comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to consider a case that could sharply limit how the federal government can regulate industries, a longtime goal of conservative activists who helped assemble a six-judge majority on the high court.

Later, Ramaswamy took yet another turn, arguing there should be strict bans on the back-and-forth between staffers in business and government. “I don’t think that we should want capitalism and democracy to share the same bed anymore,” he said. “It’s time for a clean divorce.”

The GOP’s contradictions over corporations weren’t an explicit subject of the debate, but they were an undercurrent that won’t be resolved for a while.

On immigration, on the economy and on China, the candidates on stage largely agreed. One policy area where there were real differences? Transgender rights.

The issue was barely on the national radar in the last presidential election. But in 2024, it is a centerpiece of the GOP’s increasing focus on cultural issues.

Haley defended her decision, back when she was governor, to decline to support a law that would have limited bathroom use to a person’s gender assigned on their birth certificate.

DeSantis pounced. As Florida governor, he insisted he did more to crack down on transgender rights than anyone on stage.

“I stood up for little girls, you didn’t,” he chided Haley.

DeSantis also offered a fiery argument for laws that block parents from allowing their children to receive transgender-related medical treatment.

Christie pushed back. He also reminded his rivals that conservatives used to believe in less government, not more.

“These jokers in Congress, it takes them three weeks to pick a speaker… and we’re going to put my children’s health in their hands?” the former New Jersey governor said. “As a parent, this is a choice I get to make.”

For the past seven months, the political world has watched a sort of Bizarro primary unfold — a number of Republican politicians have insisted they will become the next president while the last one, Trump, leaves them in the dust.

For those not in the know, Bizarro was a Superman character who came from a world where everything was scrambled. It’s been hard to escape that upside-down feeling as, every month, there’s another debate that Trump skips where no one does anything to change the trajectory of the race.

Wednesday night was an example. The debate was on NewsNation, a little-viewed upstart cable channel. The debate also aired on CW stations — but only in the eastern and central time zones.

Indeed, one big question was whether the debate’s ratings would be surpassed by those of DeSantis’ faceoff with California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, on Fox News last week. The Republican National Committee is expected to soon announce whether it’ll allow further unsanctioned debates. At least one more debate is expected before the Jan. 15 Iowa Caucus.

Perhaps the ultimate Bizarro twist would be if these confrontations mattered in the presidential election. You can never tell when something unexpected might happen in politics. But the time for these debates to matter, if it ever existed, is rapidly running out.

The seven justices peppered both the plaintiffs in the high-profile lawsuit and Trump’s legal team with questions, including if the siege of the U.S. Capitol by Trump’s supporters constituted an insurrection. They also probed the legal ability of the Colorado secretary of state to keep candidates off the ballot, the language of the 14th Amendment itself — which says insurrectionists can’t run for office — as well as whether Colorado can invoke that rule on its own.

The provision at issue in the Civil War-era 14th Amendment was aimed at keeping Confederates away from federal power after the nation reunited. But its language doesn’t explicitly bar insurrectionists from the highest office in the land, prompting the Colorado justices to prod both sides about what that means.

“If it was so important that the president be included, I come back to the question: Why not spell it out?” Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. asked the petitioners’ lawyers. “Why not include president and vice president in the way they spell out senator or representative?”

The attorneys hoping to keep Trump off Colorado’s ballot had argued that it would be “bizarre” and “counterintuitive” to read the amendment as barring rebels from most federal offices while leaving the presidency open to them.

Trump’s legal team argued the presidency was excluded on purpose, as a unique office. But would that mean, Justice Melissa Hart asked, that Jefferson Davis, the former president of the breakaway Confederacy, could have been elected U.S. president after the Civil War?

“That would be the rule of democracy at work,” replied Scott Gessler, a lead attorney for Trump and a former Colorado secretary of state.

The justices will sift through those answers and others in the weeks to come. They have no timeline to issue their ruling, though Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold in January must certify the ballots for the state’s March 5 presidential primaries.

After the hearing, Gessler said he viewed the justices’ close attention to the legal structure of Amendment 14’s Section 3 as “a positive.” That argument is what won for Trump in the lower court. He also didn’t want to read too much into their questioning and posture.

“I think the justices, in one form or another, expressed skepticism of everyone’s answers throughout the whole two hours,” Gessler said. “I don’t think you can really predict a whole lot from it.”

In a statement from the plaintiffs afterward, Lakewood attorney Mario Nicolais said: “Our oral argument today speaks for itself: Donald Trump took an oath to support our Constitution as an officer of the United States, violated that oath when he engaged in insurrection and consequently disqualified himself under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”

The court’s coming ruling could open the case up to a final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially if the justices disqualify Trump. The Colorado ballot case is among several similar ballot-qualification lawsuits targeting Trump across the country, but so far all have failed.

As it stands, Trump will be on Colorado’s Republican ballot. A Denver District Court judge ruled last month that Trump must be included because the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to presidents — though Judge Sarah B. Wallace also declared in the findings of fact that Trump engaged in insurrection back in January 2021.

That ruling prompted an appeal from both Trump’s legal team and the group of Republican and unaffiliated voters suing to keep him off the ballot.

Trump’s team agreed with Wallace’s reading of the 14th Amendment but asked the state Supreme Court to strike the declaration that he engaged in insurrection.

The petitioners, who are working with the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, sought a broader ruling, arguing that an insurrectionist can’t be allowed to seek the Oval Office.

There are similar heavy-hitting cases underway in Minnesota and Michigan, though courts in those states have halted the complaints. Minnesota’s Supreme Court did not rule on the merits but said political parties could nominate whomever they liked — leaving open the possibility of a 14th Amendment challenge before the general election there.

A Michigan court ruled it would be up to Congress to decide if the amendment bars Trump from the ballot there, and that state’s high court declined to expedite its review of the case.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

It’s the latest milestone in a lawsuit that alleges Trump engaged in insurrection surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, siege of the U.S. Capitol — and in doing so, disqualified himself from regaining the nation’s highest office under a Civil War-era amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The provision of the 14th Amendment bars anyone who swore an oath to the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

In November, a district court judge in Denver found Trump did engage in insurrection while also finding that the 14th Amendment restriction did not apply to the presidency the way it would to other federal offices.

Since then, lawyers for both sides as well as outside organizations and state officials across the country have weighed in on how Colorado’s justices should decide the matter. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the early afternoon.

Here’s a guide to the case and what’s at stake.

Why is the Colorado Supreme Court involved?

Denver District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled, after a weeklong trial this fall, that Trump can appear on Colorado’s 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot, despite her finding that he participated in an insurrection. This prompted both the petitioners and Trump’s legal team to appeal, though from opposite directions.

The state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last month.

Who is challenging Trump’s eligibility?

The lawsuit was brought by a group of unaffiliated and Republican Colorado voters who are working with the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The Republican petitioners include Claudine Cmarda, a former Rhode Island congresswoman who now lives in Colorado; Norma Anderson, a former majority leader in both Colorado’s state House and state Senate; and Denver Post columnist Krista Kafer.

Republican-turned-unaffiliated voter Chris Castilian, who served as deputy chief of staff for Colorado’s last GOP governor, Bill Owens, is also involved in the suit. None of the voters involved are current Democrats.

What are the plaintiffs seeking from the higher court?

Wallace’s underlying ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection through his words and actions was seen by critics of the former president as a victory in its own right. But the plaintiffs are now asking the state’s justices to go where Wallace didn’t.

Her overall ruling that the president does not qualify as an officer of the United States — a key phrase in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — would “yield absurd results,” the petitioners argued.

“It would defy logic to prohibit insurrectionists from holding every federal or state office except for the highest and most powerful in the land,” their attorneys wrote in the appeal. The legal team includes former Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson.

Why did Trump appeal a ruling he won?

Trump’s legal team, which includes former Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, agrees with Wallace’s ruling that the 14th Amendment shouldn’t apply to Trump. But his appeal argues she committed “multiple grave jurisdictional and legal errors” — including by finding he engaged in insurrection.

Trump’s speech near the White House on Jan. 6 didn’t call for violence, his attorneys argued, and still “the district court found that President Trump’s supposed intent, and the effect of his words upon certain listeners, sufficed to render his speech unprotected under the First Amendment.”

The appeal also questions whether the five-day trial that began in late October was a proper venue for constitutional litigation and the establishment of “new, unprecedented, and unsupported legal standards.”

How have challenges of Trump’s eligibility fared elsewhere?

Similar lawsuits challenging Trump’s eligibility have been filed in several states, with none succeeding so far. Among other cases with significant backing, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in November that Trump could remain on the ballot there because political parties have discretion over their primary ballots. And a Michigan judge has ruled that Congress should decide if Section 3 applies to Trump.

How will Colorado’s high court consider the case?

The Colorado Supreme Court doesn’t generally overturn a lower court’s findings of facts unless the judge made a clear error, meaning the justices likely will give some deference to Wallace’s finding that Trump did engage in insurrection. Instead, their eyes will focus more closely on how she applied the law and whether the 14th Amendment applies to Trump.

The court has no specific timeline for a ruling, but Secretary of State Jena Griswold must certify the primary ballot in January. That election is set for March 5.

What’s at stake?

In her ruling, Wallace wrote that she took the gravity of the case seriously: “To be clear, part of the Court’s decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent” of 14th Amendment’s Section 3.

Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina, called it “significant” that Wallace declared that Trump engaged in insurrection. He is the author of the upcoming book “The Law of Presidential Impeachment” and was the only expert called by both Republicans and Democrats in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

He said recent scholarship is supportive of the petitioners’ arguments that the 14th Amendment should apply to former presidents. But he didn’t have any predictions for the case — except that a ruling in the lawsuit plaintiffs’ favor would make it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would get involved, having the final say.

“It’s just speculation when and whether the U.S. Supreme Court will ever hear this case,” Gerhardt said. “But if somebody is being declared ineligible to run for the presidency, that could possibly make this a more pressing matter.”

What outside voices have weighed in?

The case has drawn interest from more than a dozen parties that have filed formal advisory briefs with the Colorado Supreme Court, expressing a range of opinions. Some briefs are outwardly partisan, including joint briefs submitted by more than a dozen state Republican parties; by 19 states with Republican leaders, spearheaded by the attorneys general of Indiana and West Virginia; by the Republican secretaries of state in Wyoming, Missouri and Ohio; and by the Republican National Committee.

“The Reconstruction Congress (after the Civil War) did not grant state officials sweeping authority to undermine the federal government,” attorneys for the national GOP wrote in a brief that argued the 14th Amendment provision shouldn’t be applied until after an election.

Trump’s team also has received backing from Treniss Jewell Evans III — a Texan who pleaded guilty last year to misdemeanor charges related to storming the Capitol on Jan. 6; he admitted to drinking a shot of Fireball whiskey in a conference room that other rioters told him belonged to then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In his brief, Evans, who said he’d been defamed by the petitioners, disputed characterizations of that day, arguing that “there was no competent evidence … to support that Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection or that there was any insurrection.”

What about on the other side?

Several law professors as well as Colorado Common Cause and the Constitutional Accountability Center, which advocates for a progressive reading of the founding document, urged the state’s justices to bar Trump from the state’s ballot.

Nine law professors countered Trump’s First Amendment defense in a joint brief, arguing it doesn’t protect speech that incites lawless action or constitutes a threat — and that disqualification wouldn’t infringe on protected speech, anyway. The filing from Common Cause, a left-leaning government watchdog group, called it “a great credit to prior generations of American political leaders” that the disqualification clause of the Constitution had so rarely been invoked — but argued this case rose to that standard.

“The fact that the Disqualification Clause is so clearly implicated at this hour, then, is a proportionally great discredit to Mr. Trump himself, who allowed a lust for power to supersede his own Oath of Office and over two centuries of American political precedent,” the filing reads.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. (AP) — Four Republican presidential candidates were given several opportunities Wednesday to criticize former President Donald Trump, who was absent from the debate again. But they mostly targeted each other, with former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley taking the brunt of the attacks as she gets more interest from donors and voters.

With just over a month before the 2024 primary calendar begins, the debate demonstrated how firm Trump’s grip remains on the party.

But the focus on Haley reflected how other candidates perceive her as a threat to their chances of taking on Trump directly. Aside from former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, most the candidates have spent more time in debates going after each other than taking aim at Trump, reflecting the view of many GOP operatives that there are diminishing returns in attacking the former president given his popularity among Republicans.

The last scheduled debate before Iowa’s GOP caucuses on Jan. 15 may have limited impact on the race, airing on a lesser-known television network, NewsNation, from a state Republican presidential candidates have carried since 1980.

Trump remains dominant in national and early-state polls. And after holding counterprogramming rallies during the first three debates, he didn’t bother this time and instead went to a closed-door fundraiser. His campaign posted an ad during the debate focusing on President Joe Biden as both parties head toward a potential rematch of the 2020 election Trump lost.

Christie repeatedly tore into Trump on Wednesday and challenged Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to answer directly if he believed Trump was fit or unfit to be president again. The crowd at the University of Alabama booed him at one point as he attacked Trump.

“His conduct is unacceptable. He’s unfit. And be careful of what you’re going to get,” warned Christie, who has been alone among leading Republicans in his focus on the race’s clear front-runner.

“There is no bigger issue in this race than Donald Trump,” he said earlier.

DeSantis suggested Trump, who is 77, is too old for the job. Asked repeatedly whether Trump is fit for the presidency, DeSantis did not directly say yes or no.

“Over a four-year period, it is not a job for someone that’s pushing 80,” DeSantis said. “We need someone who’s younger.”

Biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy again raised his hand as a candidate who would support Trump even if he were convicted of pending federal felonies, though he accused his other opponents of bowing to Trump for years to secure political posts or financial gain. The closest the 38-year-old ever came to criticizing Trump was to call for a new generation of leadership.

Haley stood silently during the extended discussion, and neither the moderators nor her rivals asked for her opinion.

The debate’s brief focus on Trump was a reprieve for Haley, who spent most of the debate on the defensive.

DeSantis accused Haley of backing down from media criticism and Ramaswamy suggested she was too close to corporate interests as she gets new attention from donors. He touted his own willingness to pick high-profile fights with his critics and went after Haley just moments into the debate, reflecting the rivalry between the two candidates reflected in dueling early-state television ads.

They also tussled over China, long an animating issue for conservatives worried about Beijing’s influence. Later in the debate, Haley credited Trump for taking a hard line with Beijing on trade but said he was too passive on other fronts, including allowing China to capture American technology for its own military use and purchase American farmland.

Interrupting Haley, DeSantis accused her of allowing Chinese investment in South Carolina when she was governor and suggested her corporate donors would never allow her to be tough on Beijing.

“First of all, he’s mad because those Wall Street donors used to support him and now they support me,” Haley retorted before accusing DeSantis of being soft on Chinese investment in Florida.

Ramaswamy, always the most eager to deliver personal barbs on the debate stage, turned a foreign policy discussion into another attack on Haley, seemingly trolling her to name provinces in Ukraine and suggesting she does not understand the country. As he kept piling on, Christie stepped in to declare Haley “a smart, accomplished woman” and dismiss Ramaswamy as “the most obnoxious blowhard in America.”

With Trump absent, the atmosphere around the debate lacked some of the buzz sometimes associated with such affairs, especially in ostensibly open primaries. Less than two hours to go before the opening salvo, the media room, which is normally the practice hall for the University of Alabama’s Million Dollar Band, was barely half full. The television and radio platforms around the periphery — the spin room, in debate parlance — were noticeably quiet, lacking the high-profile surrogates or campaign staffers who might normally be appearing live on cable news or talk radio to pitch on their candidates’ behalf.

Outside Moody Music Hall on campus, more buzz came from state high school football championship games being played in Bryant-Denny Stadium.

The debate may have been hard to find for many prospective viewers. It aired on NewsNation, a cable network still trying to build its audience after taking over WGN America three years ago. NewsNation’s Elizabeth Vargas moderated alongside Megyn Kelly, a former Fox News anchor who now hosts a popular podcast, and Eliana Johnson of the conservative news site Washington Free Beacon.

The field of invited candidates has shrunk in half since eight were on the stage at the first debate in Milwaukee in August, as the Republican National Committee tightened the criteria to reach the stage each time. For Tuesday, candidates had to get at least 6% in multiple polls and amass 80,000 unique donors.

Former Vice President Mike Pence, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum have all dropped out of the race after participating in at least one debate. Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson is continuing his campaign but failed to qualify.

The debate setting in Alabama was another reminder of Trump’s strong position — and how he outpaced an even larger Republican field when he first ran and won in 2016. Trump swept Southern primaries from Virginia to Arkansas and Louisiana in his first campaign. And the changes in Alabama Republican politics in many ways reflect Trump’s influence over the party.

___

Cooper reported from Phoenix.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s decision amounts to a sharp rejection to challenges the Trump defense team had raised to the four-count indictment in advance of a trial expected to center on the Republican’s multi-pronged efforts to undo the election won by Democrat Joe Biden.

Though the judge turned aside Trump’s expansive view of presidential power, the order might not be the final say in the legal fight. Lawyers for Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, are expected to quickly appeal to fight what they say an unsettled legal question.

In her ruling, Chutkan said the office of the president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”

“Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote. “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”

Chutkan also rejected Trump’s claims that the indictment violates the former president’s free speech rights. Lawyers for Trump had argued that he was within his First Amendment rights to challenge the outcome of the election and to allege that it had been tainted by fraud, and they accused prosecutors of attempting to criminalize political speech and political advocacy.

But Chutkan said “it is well established that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime.”

“Defendant is not being prosecuted simply for making false statements … but rather for knowingly making false statements in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and obstructing the electoral process,” she wrote.

An attorney for Trump declined to comment Friday evening.

Her ruling comes the same day the federal appeals court in Washington ruled that lawsuits brought by Democratic lawmakers and police officers who have accused Trump of inciting the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, can move forward.

The appeals court in that case rejected Trump’s sweeping claims that presidential immunity shields him from liability, but left the door open for him to continue to fight, as the cases proceed, to try to prove that his actions were taken his official capacity as president.

Trump’s legal team had argued the criminal case, which is scheduled to go to trial in March, should be dismissed because the 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner is shielded from prosecution for actions he took while fulfilling his duties as president. They assert that the actions detailed in the indictment — including pressing state officials on the administration of elections — cut to the core of Trump’s responsibilities as commander in chief.

The Supreme Court has held that presidents are immune from civil liability for actions related to their official duties, but the justices have never grappled with the question of whether that immunity extends to criminal prosecution.

The Justice Department has also held that sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted. Trump’s lawyers are trying to ensure that same protection to a former president for actions taken while in office, asserting that no prosecutor since the beginning of American democracy has had the authority to bring such charges.

“Against the weight of that history, Defendant argues in essence that because no other former Presidents have been criminally prosecuted, it would be unconstitutional to start now,” Chutkan wrote. “But while a former President’s prosecution is unprecedented, so too are the allegations that a President committed the crimes with which Defendant is charged.”

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has said there is nothing in the Constitution, or in court precedent, to support the idea that a former president cannot be prosecuted for criminal conduct committed while in the White House.

“The defendant is not above the law. He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans, including Members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens,” prosecutors wrote in court papers.

It’s one of four criminal cases Trump is facing while he seeks to reclaim the White House in 2024.

Smith has separately charged Trump in Florida with illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after he left the White House. Trump is also charged in Georgia with conspiring to overturn his election loss to Biden. And he faces charges in New York related to hush-money payments made during the 2016 campaign.

Richer reported from Boston.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Re: “Tributes highlight reach as first lady, humanitarian” and “Trump hints at expanded role for the military within the U.S.,” Nov. 28 news stories

I couldn’t help but chuckle at the juxtaposition on page 13A of Tuesday’s Denver Post, where the article memorializing the life of First Lady Rosalynn Carter, who spent nearly a century alongside her husband, former President Jimmy Carter, devoting their lives to the welfare of others, sat side to side with the continuation of the story about former President Donald Trump suggesting the use of America’s military against its own people.

Could the comparison be any more striking?

While President Carter and his wife weathered a difficult presidency, they went on to use their position to show what true civil service looks like. It looks like humility, compassion, kindness, selflessness and service. It is putting the well-being of others before yourself.

In comparison, Trump has never lifted his finger to do a charitable thing in his life. At over 90, President Carter was still hammering nails into boards to build homes.

Trump boasts and brags. He has been indicted for lying and cheating. He is embroiled in political and personal scandals and sowed the seeds of division that led to the most shameful political event in the United States in well over 100 years: Jan. 6th. The Carters leave the legacy of Habitat for Humanity, which works in 70 countries and has helped more than 46 million people.

The side-by-side placement of these stories in The Post reminds me that we all have a choice to make every day. Do we choose a life of vice or of virtue? Let’s all choose humility, compassion, kindness and service. America will be a better place for it. Thank you, Rosalynn, for showing us how.

Christie McNeill, Englewood

Was officer guilty of lesser charges?

Re: “Officer returns, will get back pay,” Nov. 29 news story

It is perhaps understandable that a jury would have acquitted Aurora patrol officer Nathan Woodyard on manslaughter, or homicide charges in the arrest death of Elijah McClain, given that ketamine administered by paramedics arriving later in the arrest played a part in the sad outcome. Should there not have been a lesser charge also made against Woodyard — perhaps a felony assault — which could have more likely resulted in a conviction? Doing so would have disqualified Woodyard from reinstatement or other police employment while avoiding the reported taxpayer cost of $212,546 in back pay for the 26 months of his suspension time, which equates to around $98,000 a year.

Peter Ehrlich, Denver

Mayor victim of car theft punctuates the city’s epidemic

News that Mike Johnston’s car was stolen about a month ago, and the fact that this happened to him before as well, goes on to show the extremely high auto theft crime rate in the metro area, which even the mayor is not immune to. However, not every Denverite is as lucky as Mayor Johnston in recovering their vehicles. If this incident will not wake up the authorities to crack down on auto theft, there is little hope for what can help the Mile High City.

Hassaan Idrees, Denver

Sports columnists should tackle political commentary

Please help! When I opened the paper one morning, I turned immediately to the sports section (usually my go-to is the editorial pages). The Post has great sports columnists featuring clear-eyed opinions leavened with humor. And sports as an activity, despite everything, has a spontaneous beauty supported by supreme athleticism. (They work so hard, and the risk is so great!)

For a day, can your sports columnists anonymously weigh in on our political competitions?

Evan Siegel, Westminster

In fact, the opinion by Colorado District Judge Sarah B. Wallace is a giant step toward disqualifying Trump from the ballot on constitutional grounds.

The Colorado challenge is one of several brought under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies officials who “have engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding federal office. The provision gives rise to the argument that Trump is not qualified to run for president because of his role in the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

In the last few of its 102 pages, Wallace’s opinion concludes that the president is not “an officer of the United States” for the purposes of the amendment and is therefore not disqualified from the ballot. Trump hailed this as “a gigantic court victory.”

But the former president was either bluffing or being obtuse. In fact, the opinion goes nine-tenths of the way toward recognizing the challengers’ claim and disqualifying Trump before opting for a close and questionable textual reading on the officer question. The ruling is far more important for how it goes against Trump than for the court’s final change of direction.

Every other court that has taken up the 14th Amendment claim to date has shied away from adjudicating it on the merits, finding it was a political question or otherwise unsuited for determination by the courts. The Colorado judge, by contrast, held a week-long evidentiary hearing, taking testimony on the law and the facts.

Wallace’s resulting opinion works methodically through the evidence to determine that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection, which only a trial court can do. In the process, she rejected Trump’s 1st Amendment defense, finding that his intentional incitement of the Jan. 6 marauders overcame any free-speech claim.

The order that will be appealed to higher courts thus has nearly everything that would be needed to disqualify Trump from the ballot. Its final flinch on whether the president is an officer is a discrete question of textual interpretation that any appellate court could decide differently.

The challengers’ brief, in fact, treated the officer issue almost as an afterthought, though a subsequent Wall Street Journal op-ed by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey brought new attention to the question. And the conclusion that the president is not an officer has drawn ferocious criticism from eminent scholars, including the conservative former appellate Judge J. Michael Luttig, who called it “unfathomable.”

However weak or strong the claim — I don’t think it’s as ridiculous as others contend — the important point is that higher courts will decide it as a question of law. They may well disagree with Wallace on that point while adopting her far more important finding that Trump engaged in insurrection.

It’s widely assumed that any appellate ruling disqualifying Trump from the ballot would prompt intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court, which would have the final say. And it’s hard to imagine that the Supreme Court could or would make the determination that Trump engaged in insurrection without a factual record to review. In that way, Wallace’s opinion sets what had been an empty table for the court.

Of course, appellate courts could agree with Wallace on the officer question or differ with her on other legal grounds. A higher court could, for example, reject Wallace’s definition of insurrection as “any public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the execution of law” — an expansive definition based on a historical analysis of the term’s meaning during Reconstruction, when the 14th Amendment was adopted. Higher courts could also hold that enforcement of Section 3 is a political question that only Congress can answer, though that would raise other questions about the states’ power to ensure candidates meet other basic qualifications for the ballot.

The bottom line, however, is that the Colorado opinion gives the challengers what they needed most — a determination that Trump engaged in insurrection — while raising legal questions that the higher courts would have had to answer in any case. It thereby breathes new life into a potential legal solution to the Trump nightmare that might otherwise have remained quixotic.

Harry Litman is the host of the“Talking Feds” podcast.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Oral arguments will take place Dec. 6, the court announced.

The appeals were filed Monday night. The ruling by District Court Judge Sarah Wallace on Friday — which said Trump is not covered by the Constitution’s ban on insurrectionists holding office — was the latest in a series of defeats for the effort to end Trump’s candidacy with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

A group in Michigan has filed an appeal with that state’s Supreme Court.

The constitutional provision has only been used a handful of times since the years after the Civil War. It was created to prevent former Confederates from returning to government positions.

The group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filing on behalf of a group of Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters, argued that Wallace was wrong in ruling that it’s not clear the provision was intended to apply to presidents.

The section prevents those who took an oath to support the Constitution from serving in Congress, the Electoral College “or as an officer of the United States.” It does not specifically mention the presidency.

Based on common sense alone, the appeal states, “there would be no reason to allow Presidents who lead an insurrection to serve again while preventing low-level government workers who act as foot soldiers from doing so. And it would defy logic to prohibit insurrectionists from holding every federal or state office except for the highest and most powerful in the land.”

Trump, meanwhile, appealed Wallace’s finding that he did engage in insurrection and questioned whether a state court judge like her, rather than Congress, should settle the issue.

The case will be heard by the seven justices on the state court, all of whom were appointed by Democrats.
Colorado officials have urged a final decision by Jan. 5, 2024, when they must finalize their primary ballot.

The next step after Colorado’s high court would be the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never ruled on Section 3.

Trump has slammed the lawsuits as “election interference” by Democratic “dark money” groups.

At a time when our democratic traditions are already being threatened, the prospect of a general election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump — with polls showing that some 65% of voters are opposed to both men — seems likely to increase the public’s despair about our way of government.

For the good of the country, as a patriotic act, somebody should step up to change this unhappy picture. And a man from Colorado could be the one to do it.

In short: Gov. Jared Polis should run for president in 2024.

There are two reasons why Polis should make this gutsy move.

First, a challenge to Biden from a serious, respected contender could galvanize the Democratic Party to do what its leaders know they ought to do: find a presidential candidate who has a better chance to win than the unpopular 81-year-old incumbent.

If Polis jumps into the race, he would encourage other often-mentioned possibilities — e.g., Govs. Gretchen Whitman (Mich) and Gavin Newsom (Cal.), Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.) and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) — to enter as well.

It’s widely reported that each of those leading Democrats has considered a 2024 race, but they’re all holding back to show respect for their party’s incumbent president. If one prominent Democrat — Jared Polis, for example — had the guts to mount a primary campaign, others would probably do the same. Then the Democrats — and the American people — could land a presidential candidate who’s free of Biden’s considerable baggage.

Even Joe Biden would benefit from such a challenge. If he managed to beat Polis or other major figures in a serious primary contest, Biden would enter the general election as a proven winner, rather than as “Sleepy Joe,” the default choice of a somnolent party.

The second reason Jared Polis should run for president in 2024 is that Jared Polis could win.

After a generally successful first term, a well-received response to the COVID pandemic, and a runaway re-election victory against a Trump-endorsed challenger, Polis is gaining national recognition as the kind of person who might become a president. Established pundits ranging from the Washington Post’s George Will to the New York Times’ Bret Stephens have cited Colorado’s governor as a candidate they’d like to see in the race.

On a personal level, Polis checks a lot of boxes. He’d be our first Jewish president, a fact that might be an asset at a time when many are worried about anti-Semitism in the U.S. He’s a happily married man with two kids — who happens to be gay. He’s an unapologetic capitalist; in fact, he’s a multi-millionaire business tycoon who started his first profitable venture in his college dorm room. That’s the kind of biographical detail that Republican candidates love to boast about. He’s a strong campaigner who has never lost an election; that’s a biographical item that any candidate would like to mention.

Although he’s the Democratic governor of an increasingly Democratic state, Polis has taken some positions that seem likely to appeal to conservative-leaning voters. He has consistently called for lower taxes, even suggesting that Colorado should reduce the state income tax to zero. He takes a wary — indeed, libertarian — approach to government regulations.

Katherine Mangu-Ward, the editor of Reason Magazine, a leading libertarian journal, was asked this month which candidates she might support for president. She mentioned one name: Jared Polis.

Coloradans know that Polis and his fellow Democrats were losers this month when voters soundly rejected Proposition HH, their plan to offset impending property tax increases. But that loss can be turned into lemonade in a national campaign. The vote on HH has forced Polis to call a special session of the legislature to reduce (partly) the coming tax hikes. When he runs for president, Polis can traverse the nation bragging that he ordered the state legislature into session specifically to cut taxes — and he never has to mention the ill-fated Prop HH.

Polls suggest that the likely Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump, is even more unpopular than Biden. But at least the Republican Party has several serious people who had the courage to take on Trump in the primaries. Some Democrat needs to show the same courage by challenging Biden. And the best guy to do that is a Coloradan: Jared Polis.

Political reporter T. R. Reid, of Denver, covered four presidential campaigns for The Washington Post. He did not confer with Polis or any of his staff about this column.