Challenge over Marjorie Taylor Greene’s eligibility fails

ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger accepted a judge’s findings Friday and mentioned U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is qualified to run for reelection despite claims by a bunch of voters that she had engaged in riot.

Georgia Administrative Law Choose Charles Beaudrot issued a decision hours earlier that Green was eligible to run, finding the voters hadn’t produced ample proof to again their claims. After Raffensperger adopted the judge’s resolution, the group that filed the grievance on behalf of the voters vowed to appeal.

Earlier than reaching his decision, Beaudrot had held a daylong hearing in April that included arguments from attorneys for the voters and for Greene, as well as extensive questioning of Greene herself. He also obtained additional filings from either side.

Raffensperger is being challenged by a candidate backed by former President Donald Trump in the state’s May 24 GOP main after he refused to bend to strain from Trump to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia. Raffensperger may have faced huge blowback from right-wing voters if he had disagreed with Beaudrot’s findings.

Raffensperger wrote in his “ultimate choice” that typical challenges to a candidate’s eligibility need to do with questions on residency or whether or not they have paid their taxes. Such challenges are allowed beneath a procedure outlined in Georgia regulation.

“On this case, Challengers assert that Consultant Greene’s political statements and actions disqualify her from workplace,” Raffensperger’s decision said. “That is rightfully a query for the voters of Georgia’s 14th Congressional District.”

The challenge was filed for five voters in her district by Free Speech for Folks, a nationwide election and campaign finance reform group. They allege the GOP congresswoman played a significant role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot that disrupted Congress’ certification of Biden’s presidential victory. That they had argued that put her in violation of a seldom-invoked part of the 14th Amendment having to do with riot and makes her ineligible to run for reelection.

Greene applauded Beaudrot’s decision and called the problem to her eligibility an “unprecedented assault on free speech, on our elections, and on you, the voter.”

“However the battle is simply starting,” she said in a statement. “The left won't ever stop their conflict to remove our freedoms.” She added, “This ruling gives me hope that we can win and save our nation.”

Free Speech for Folks had despatched a letter to Raffensperger on Friday urging him to reject the judge’s recommendation. They've 10 days to make their planned appeal of his choice in Fulton County Superior Court.

The group said in a press release that Beaudrot’s resolution “betrays the elemental goal of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause and gives a go to political violence as a device for disrupting and overturning free and fair elections.”

During the April 22 hearing, Ron Fein, a lawyer for the voters, noted that in a TV interview the day earlier than the attack at the U.S. Capitol, Greene mentioned the following day can be “our 1776 moment.” Lawyers for the voters mentioned some supporters of then-President Trump used that reference to the American Revolution as a call to violence.

“In reality, it turned out to be an 1861 second,” Fein mentioned, alluding to the start of the Civil Battle.

Greene is a conservative firebrand and Trump ally who has grow to be one of the GOP’s greatest fundraisers in Congress by stirring controversy and pushing baseless conspiracy theories. Through the current hearing, she repeated the unfounded claim that widespread fraud led to Trump’s loss in the 2020 election, mentioned she didn’t recall varied incendiary statements and social media posts attributed to her. She denied ever supporting violence.

Greene acknowledged encouraging a rally to assist Trump, but she mentioned she wasn’t conscious of plans to storm the Capitol or disrupt the electoral rely utilizing violence. Greene stated she feared for her security during the riot and used social media posts to encourage people to be protected and keep calm.

The problem to her eligibility was based mostly on a section of the 14th Modification that says no one can serve in Congress “who, having beforehand taken an oath, as a member of Congress ... to help the Constitution of the US, shall have engaged in rebel or rebel in opposition to the identical.” Ratified shortly after the Civil Struggle, it was meant partially to maintain representatives who had fought for the Confederacy from returning to Congress.

Greene “urged, encouraged and helped facilitate violent resistance to our personal authorities, our democracy and our Constitution,” Fein stated, concluding: “She engaged in rebellion.”

James Bopp, a lawyer for Greene, argued his client engaged in protected political speech and was, herself, a sufferer of the attack on the Capitol, not a participant.

Beaudrot wrote that there’s no proof that Greene participated in the assault on the Capitol or that she communicated with or gave directives to individuals who had been involved.

“Regardless of the precise parameters of the meaning of ‘interact’ as used in the 14th Modification, and assuming for these purposes that the Invasion was an insurrection, Challengers have produced insufficient evidence to point out that Rep. Greene ‘engaged’ in that rebel after she took the oath of office on January 3, 2021,” he wrote.

Greene’s “public statements and heated rhetoric” might have contributed to the setting that led to the assault, but they're protected by the First Amendment, Beaudrot wrote.

“Expressing constitutionally-protected political opinions, regardless of how aberrant they could be, prior to being sworn in as a Consultant shouldn't be participating in rebel below the 14th Modification,” he stated.

Free Speech for Folks has filed similar challenges in Arizona and North Carolina.

Greene has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of the regulation that the voters are utilizing to attempt to hold her off the ballot. That suit is pending.