As we usher in the New Year, I extend my heartfelt appreciation for the positive changes brought about by the new city council. Their dedication to restoring strong leadership has been commendable. Moreover, the decision to appoint a highly qualified “top gun” individual as our new city manager reflects their commitment to excellence.

In just two months, this new leadership has accomplished significant milestones, surpassing the achievements of the previous councils over the last three years. Here’s to a prosperous and fulfilling 2024!

Michael Russell

Baker City

With reference to Jayson Jacoby’s Jan. 2, 2024, column in the Baker City Herald titled ‘’Judges shouldn’t decide who’s on the ballot’’

Jayson states his concerns that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that Trump is disqualified to appear on the state’s primary ballot is premature. Considering the following listed circumstances I do not think the Colorado Supreme Court acted prematurely.

A Colorado lower court judge made a “finding of fact” that the January 6th attack on Congress was an insurrection and that Trump participated in it.

She did not rule on Trump’s qualification to hold office as she was unsure of the proper interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Section 3; i.e., was the office of President included in the definitions of those ineligible to hold public office if found guilty of insurrection. Both Trump’s lawyer’s and an opposing citizen group appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Court with requests for a quick decision.

The Court then decided that it should address the issue and make a decision quickly. That Trump has not been convicted of participating in an insurrection at that time was not specifically relevant to this Court’s decision. They obviously knew their decision would be appealed to the US Supreme Court regardless of which way they decided.

I believe the US Supreme Court needs to determine at least the following three issues in their review of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision:

First, is the US President included as an officer of the United States in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment; second, will the Court uphold the lower courts’ “Finding of Fact” that the January 6 attack on Congress was an insurrection; and third, what specific types of and at what level of personal acts constitute participation in an insurrection.

The third issue seems to me to be extremely difficult but I feel strongly that it needs to be settled. Criminal acts need to be prosecuted at the highest level not at the easiest because the highest is not clearly enough defined to probably win a conviction.

With regard to Jayson’s concerns about the political ramifications of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, I understand them and agree with many of them.

But, questionable political acts that occur within the bounds of law are not questions that the judicial system should be considering in making their determinations.

Questionable but legal political acts need to be addressed by the legislative and executive branches of our governments for resolution.

Now getting back to the matter of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, if not now — then when?

No matter what the US Supreme Court decides there will be political ramification, but the legal matter needs to be settled ASAP to clear the legal fog currently surrounding this election season.

Under our political system there are winners and losers. Losers will invariably be saddened and perhaps angered by their loss. However they choose to politically react, they do not have the right to commit violent acts in retribution.

Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the issues brought forth in the column.

Ramon Lara

Baker City