The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled to bar former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state's presidential election ballots. The Trump campaign stated its intent to bring this matter to the US Supreme Court in hopes of overturning it.

Richard Painter, former Chief White House Ethics Lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, joins Yahoo Finance to discuss the matter, outlining how states could follow suit in disqualifying or barring Trump from other ballots.

"Some states may choose to follow follow. some states may choose the route that Minnesota and Michigan did, which is to allow Donald Trump to be on the primary ballot, but then address this again with respect to the general election," Painter says. "I think the Supreme Court should make that decision in early January so the Republican party has an opportunity to move on."

For more expert insight and the latest market action, click here to watch this full episode of Yahoo Finance Live.

This post was written by Luke Carberry Mogan.

Video Transcript

- Help us kind of triage this thought process or what comes next of this out here because this, just out of Colorado, kind of setting the scene for what's going to eventually get kicked into the Supreme Court, we believe, and now ultimately has some broader election implications what would you be watching for?

RICHARD PAINTER: Well, first of all, I should emphasize that the decision here in Minnesota, my home state, in Michigan, was not in favor of Donald Trump on the core issue here about disqualification under 14th Amendment Section 3.

The Minnesota and Michigan courts simply allowed the Republican Party to put Donald Trump on the ballot for the primary if they so chose and then would address the disqualification issues for the general election.

The Colorado Supreme Court chose a different tack, which I think is a lot fairer to the Republican Party, which is to decide the issue now.

Is Donald Trump qualified to be President of the United States, or is he disqualified for insurrection under 14th Amendment Section 3?

The Colorado Supreme Court answered that question in the affirmative.

This gives the Republican Party and voters in Republican primaries, which will include myself in Minnesota where independents are allowed to vote in primaries of the two major parties, the opportunity to select a different candidate.

A candidate who is not disqualified from public office, who did not participate in insurrection.

Whether it's Governor Nikki Haley or someone else, whose policies would very much conform with the Republican platform without the baggage that Donald Trump would bring into office with four criminal indictments, 91 felony counts that have to be tried either before or after the election.

So this is an opportunity for the Republican Party to look at other candidates.

And so we can have an election in November where there are two real choices in front of voters.

Two candidates who voters respect as people, who are loyal to America but have different perspectives on what we ought to do as a matter of tax policy, immigration policy, and trade policy and the like.

And so hopefully, that's where this is going to go.

We'll see what the United States Supreme Court does.

There are a number of options.

They could simply let Colorado do what they will on this, saying this is a reasonable interpretation of 14th Amendment Section 3, but not impose this decision on the other 49 states.

The Supreme Court could go the other way and simply say Donald Trump is disqualified from office in all 50 states on the ballot.

Or yes, the Supreme Court could side with Donald Trump and say that he's not an insurrectionist, that he can be on the ballot in November despite his upcoming criminal trials, two of which are directly related to the insurrection of January 6th.

- And Richard, do you think this becomes a trend then that we see from the states?

Is this a move by Colorado that then other states would follow?

Where do you think things go from here in terms of that perspective?

RICHARD PAINTER: Well, some states may choose to follow.

Some states may choose the route that Minnesota and Michigan did, which is to allow Donald Trump to be on the primary ballot but then address this again with respect to the general election.

I don't think that approach is fair to the Republican Party.

I think the Republican Party is entitled to have this decided now in all 50 states.

I believe Donald Trump should be disqualified for the ballot, and I think the Supreme Court should make that decision in early January, so the Republican Party has an opportunity to move on.

But we have yet to see what the Supreme Court does, and other states will have a number of options, or fewer options, depending on what the Supreme Court says in January.