It was recently reported by ConservativeBrief that Arizona’s Supreme Court has ruled that three Republican lawmakers can run for re-election, rejecting a lawsuit from a liberal group that had challenged their eligibility.
The state’s highest court ruled that GOP Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs as well as Republican State Rep. Mark Finchem can remain on the ballot in their respective races this year.
A group of voters had sued to have the three Republicans removed from the ballot over their alleged involvement in the incident at the U.S. Capitol last year.
The Daily Wire reported:
The case originated in the Maricopa County Superior Court, which ruled in favor of the three candidates. The Superior Court ruled that: Congress did not establish a private right of action to enforce the Disqualification Clause, nor does the criminal statute outlawing insurrection and rebellion; the Arizona state law governing election challenges similarly does not provide for a private right of action, and; the Constitution only gives Congress the authority to determine qualifications for holding office, among other rulings.
The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court’s findings, noting that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment expressly delegates the authority on whether and how to enforce the Disqualification Clause to Congress. The Court also ruled that a state-level election challenge is not the proper way to enact a Disqualification Clause challenge, and is out of the scope of Arizona law. The Court thus upheld the lower Court ruling; all three candidates will appear on the ballot for the August primary.
Last week, a judge ruled that Georgia GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene can remain on the ballot after voters in the state challenged their candidacy.
Georgia state law states that State Administrative Law Judge Charles Beaudrot had to submit his findings to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
Raffensperger accepted the judge’s findings and said Greene is qualified to run for re-election.
“A Georgia administrative law judge issued a decision that Green was eligible to run following claims by five voters filed through the organization Free Speech for People. The lawsuit accused the controversial Northwest Georgia Republican of engaging in insurrection. The judge found that the plaintiffs had not produced sufficient evidence to back their claims,” local news outlet WUGA reported.
Donald Trump Poll
"*" indicates required fields
“After Raffensperger adopted the judge’s decision, the group that filed the complaint on behalf of the voters vowed to appeal. Free Speech for People has filed similar challenges in Arizona and North Carolina. Greene has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of the law that the voters are using to try to keep her off the ballot. That suit is pending,” the outlet continued.
Last month, an Obama-appointed federal judge allowed a liberal lawsuit aimed at disqualifying Greene from running for re-election.
“This case involves a whirlpool of colliding constitutional interests of public import,” Totenberg wrote in her 73-page decision.
“The novelty of the factual and historical posture of this case — especially when assessed in the context of a preliminary injunction motion reviewed on a fast track — has made resolution of the complex legal issues at stake here particularly demanding,” the judge added.
James Bopp Jr., Greene’s attorney, dismissed the lawsuit against his client as “50 pages of newspaper articles, hearsay, and political hyperbole.”
Bopp also warned during the court hearing last week that a ruling against Green could eventually lead to challenges against Donald Trump’s fitness for office.