Trump ineligible to run for president in Colorado and Maine in 2024 Election

Update he’s blocked from the Maine presidential ballot in 2024 as well:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67837639

Can i just confirm the legal basis for these (14th amendment) is based on the fact that Congress impeached him despite the fact that the Senate aquited him (essentially why the Supreme Court is likely to clear him since its not the place of state courts outside Washington DC to convict him of insurrection).

As somebody that's not a massive Trumpia I'd say it does look dodgy because not everybody believes that Trump is guilty of insurrection including I and if I don't then millions to the right of me probably don't.

Guilty of being an idiot, yes. But guilty of masterminding a coup, no. It's the police's job to stop protests, not his and not telling them to go home is not a crime.

It's also suspect that a Colorado Court could really be making this ruling given that the crime committed was in Washington DC.

It looks like the 14th Amendment was the reason given but there’s more information here as well:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66690276
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67779740

But this isn't a criminal punishment, it's an eligibility requirement. We don't need a conviction to know that Arnold Schwarzenegger is ineligible for the presidency because he's not a US citizen by birth, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez because she's younger than the minimum age requirement, or George Bush because he's already served two terms.

Similarly, many of the former Confederates barred from office under the 14th Amendment when it was initially passed were never formally convicted. It would have taken years to process them all through the criminal courts, and imprisoning that many people would have been wildly impractical (not to mention, in some cases, violating some Confederate units' terms of surrender). But barring them from political office was much easier to do.

The question here then is whether any of those confederates appealed the decision and how the courts ruled back then as the only precedent.

But this isn't a criminal punishment, it's an eligibility requirement. We don't need a conviction to know that Arnold Schwarzenegger is ineligible for the presidency because he's not a US citizen by birth, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez because she's younger than the minimum age requirement, or George Bush because he's already served two terms.

Similarly, many of the former Confederates barred from office under the 14th Amendment when it was initially passed were never formally convicted. It would have taken years to process them all through the criminal courts, and imprisoning that many people would have been wildly impractical (not to mention, in some cases, violating some Confederate units' terms of surrender). But barring them from political office was much easier to do.

Whether someone "engaged in insurrection" is much more of a judgement call than someone's age or country of birth.

"Engaged in insurrection" according to whom? If they genuinely engaged in insurrection, shouldn't they have been convicted of this?

If it doesn't require a conviction, that could lead to incredibly flimsy accusations of "engaging in insurrection" to try to remove candidates from ballots.

Then i'm struggling to see why they are doing this.

Either they think they can argue that a federal matter is a state matter which is stupid since the 'insurrection' was not committed in Maine or they think that the Senate was wrong and that they can make whatever rulings they want.

I'd be suprised if even a Democrat Supreme Court struggled with this one.