Noteworthy News

[Angrboda]

According to some interpretations of the relevant clause, adjudication isn’t necessary. It’s - constitutionally - enough to have ‘…engaged in insurrection or rebellion…’.

Any removing him from the primary ballots makes a good deal of legal and political sense. If he stays on the ballot and crushes it in the primary, and is then removed from the general, it gives him ammunition about ‘ignoring the will of the voters’, blah blah blah.

Boru

These are all good points, and it really can be argued either way. I think a criminal conviction will be a much stronger basis than a civil finding (which is what Colorado's judgement is) because of the stricter evidentiary standard along with the fact that it would likely be settled by jury vote. For those reasons it would also be harder to attain. Absent that, his followers will be able to whine that it wasn't proven (and of course they'll likely do that anyway).

Another issue is that Constitutionally, state legislatures have the  power to regulate all elections inside that state (subject to Congressional oversight). The Constitution, notably, makes no mention of oversight by SCOTUS. This opens the possibility, slim though it may be, that the Roberts Court finds itself lacking standing to adjudicate the matter.

The Roberts court has had no difficulty creating standing out of whole cloth. I doubt this would be different.