Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) defended herself Friday against an administrative complaint that alleges she incited a January 6 “insurrection” and therefore should be barred from the ballot.
“I only believe in peaceful demonstration,” Greene said. “I do not support violence.”
In early April, a far-left group, Free Speech For People, filed an administrative complaint with Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Greene then brought suit in Northern District of Georgia to dismiss the complaint, but an Obama-appointed judge ruled Greene’s suit did not belong in federal court.
The administrative complaint claims Greene cannot run for reelection because of her alleged involvement in the January 6 “insurrection,” as the media dubbed the incident. The complaint cites a Civil War-related provision in the U.S. Constitution known as the “Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause.”
“Plaintiff alleges that the provision of the Challenge Statute ‘triggering a government investigation based only upon a Challenger’s belief’ — here, that Plaintiff engaged in an insurrection — violates Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to run for political office,” the court proceeding stated.
.@RepMTG was never tried or convicted of insurrection. She has had no due process with the accusation of insurrection. Therefore, she should stay on the ballot. Close and shut case. If this court rules otherwise, it will be overturned. They are doing this to distract.
— Wendy Rogers (@WendyRogersAZ) April 22, 2022
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment blocks congressmen and women from holding office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same” or have given “aid or comfort to the enemies.”
Green’s testimony to dismiss the complaint failed. Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg of the Northern District of Georgia denied Green’s request for a preliminary injunction, ruling in favor of Raffensperger.
The judge stated Greene’s argument did not belong in federal court because Green’s right to remain on the ballot is a state question, not a federal one. The ruling did not directly address if she participated in an “insurrection” or if she was blocked from the ballot:
The Court has particularly focused on whether Plaintiff has carried her burden of persuasion to establish a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits of her legal claims. Upon a thorough analysis of each of the claims asserted in this case, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not carried her burden of persuasion with respect to this important and essential prerequisite to Plaintiff’s demonstration of an entitlement to injunctive relief.
As the Court has found that Plaintiff fails to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, the Court need not further address the three other prerequisites for injunctive relief.
A law professor at the University of Iowa, Derek Muller, told Reuters blocking Greene from the ballot would be unconstitutional. “Georgia has no jurisdiction to assess a congressional candidate’s eligibility today,” Muller said in regards to states vs congressional authority.
“Even if Ms. Greene were an insurrectionist, Congress has the authority to lift that bar, which it could do at any time before she presents her credentials to Congress next year if she were reelected,” he added.
The case is Greene v. Raffensperger, No. 1:22-cv-01294 in the Northern District of Georgia.
Follow Wendell Husebø on Twitter and Gettr @WendellHusebø. He is the author of Politics of Slave Morality.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.