Subject: Re: Another Win For President Trump
And how does a single state have jurisdiction in a federal election matter? What's amazing is that this went on as long as it did.

Because the U.S. Constitution delegates a fair amount of authority over conducting federal elections back down to the states. All federal elections are administered by the states, who are to set the rules governing the time, place, and manner of conduction elections under Article I, Section 4 and Article II, Section 1. And because state law in Colorado was construed as reaching this question, the state court held that it had jurisdiction to resolve the question of whether Trump met the state requirements that incorporated the federal ones. Which itself is not that unusual - many states have their own constitutional and/or statutory provisions that mirror or incorporate their federal analogs, and so it's pretty common for people to have a state cause of action to enforce things like freedom of speech or what have you under the state analog to or incorporation of the federal provision.

This hasn't gone on long at all. Because this case dealt with a novel issue of law that concerned (among other things) the extent of a state's ability to enforce that type of a provision, it lasted for as long as it took to reach the Supreme Court - which wasn't actually all that long. Remember, Colorado's lower courts did not strike Trump from the ballot, and it's only been since December that there was a ruling to the contrary. Four months from state supreme court decision to the SCOTUS issuing a ruling is lightning fast.