E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
How can that be? Because Marty focuses on the purely legal consequences of a decision affirming the Colorado Supreme Court and Bruce on the practical effects of such a decision as it's likely to be presented to the public.
First, pro-Marty: All that affirming the Colorado Supreme Court decision means, legally, is that it's constitutionally permissible for a state to conclude, through its authorized processes, that Trump is disqualified from appearing on the ballot pursuant to state law regulating ballot access. It wouldn't mean, legally, that Trump cannot appear on any ballot anywhere in the country--and indeed, as I argued earlier, it doesn't even mean that were the Republican electors to win a majority of Colorado's votes in November they couldn't vote for Trump in December.
But second, pro-Bruce: There's no question in my mind that a large swathe of the public, misinformed by both mainstream and politically tilted media, will interpret a decision affirming the Colorado Supreme Court as a holding that Trump can't appear on the ballot anywhere in the country. Were there a chance of a "shakedown" period in which that misunderstanding could be overcome, perhaps the consequences Bruce and others fear might be tempered, but I seriously doubt that there would be such a shakedown period or that the tempering efect would be large.