In a recent interview on CNN's "State of the Union," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) defended the decision of election officials in Colorado and Maine to block former President Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot in their respective states. Raskin argued that this action was based on a clear constitutional amendment and was not undemocratic.

The constitutional amendment in question, Section 3, disqualifies individuals who have engaged in insurrection from running for the presidency. Raskin asserted that this disqualification was the "most democratic" form because it allows individuals to choose to disqualify themselves. Drawing a parallel, Raskin highlighted that individuals like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm are also ineligible to run for president due to their foreign birthplaces.

Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, explained that Trump falls into the category of individuals who have essentially disqualified themselves by participating in the January 6 attack on the Capitol. This act of insurrection formed the basis for the decision made by election officials in Colorado and Maine.

Acknowledging other disqualifications outlined in the Constitution, Raskin cited age as an example. He mentioned a colleague, Maxwell Frost, who is a talented young politician at the age of 26 but is ineligible to run for president. Raskin emphasized that these disqualifications are part of the rules established in the Constitution and can be changed if desired.

The actions taken by officials in Colorado and Maine to bar Donald Trump from the ballot reflect their interpretation of Section 3 of the Constitution. While Colorado and Maine might be the first states to implement such a measure, it remains to be seen if other states will follow their lead.

As the debate surrounding Trump's political future continues, this decision raises questions about the ways in which the Constitution is interpreted and adapted to meet the demands of modern political realities. Critics argue that barring a former president from the ballot sets a dangerous precedent, while supporters claim it is a necessary response to his involvement in the Capitol attack.

It remains to be seen how this legal dispute will unfold and whether it will have implications for future presidential elections. As Rep. Raskin noted, those who disagree with the current rules have the option to pursue constitutional changes to address their concerns.