ATLANA (AP) – A judge in Georgia on Friday ruled that U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Green is eligible to run for re-election, concluding that a group of voters who challenged her eligibility failed to prove she participated in uprising after taking office. But the decision will ultimately be up to Republican Secretary of State Brad Rafensperger.
Before making a decision, state administrative law judge Charles Baudro held a one-day hearing in April, which included arguments from voters’ and Green’s lawyers, as well as a detailed interrogation of Green herself. He also received a detailed briefing from both sides.
U.S. law says Bodro must present his findings to Rafensperger, who must decide whether Green should be removed from the vote.
Rafensperger has been challenged by a Trump-backed Republican primary candidate this month and is likely to face a huge blow from right-wing voters if he disagrees with Bodro’s statement.
A Raffensperger spokesman said in an email that the secretary of state had received Bodro’s recommendation and “will announce his final decision soon”.
Challenges to Green’s eligibility have been filed by voters who say the Republican congresswoman played a significant role in the January 6, 2021 uprising, which violated Congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election. This violates a rarely used part of the 14th Amendment related to the uprising and makes it inadmissible to run for re-election, they said.
During the April 22 hearing on the challenge, Ron Fain, a lawyer for the voters who filed the complaint, noted that in a television interview the day before the attack on the US Capitol, Green said the next day would be “our moment in 1776.” voters were told that some supporters of then-President Donald Trump used this reference to the American Revolution as a call for violence.
“It actually turned out to be a moment from 1861,” Fein said, alluding to the start of the Civil War.
Green is a conservative favorite and ally of Trump, who has become one of the Republican Party’s biggest fundraisers in Congress, provoking controversy and pushing baseless conspiracy theories. Green was questioned under oath during a recent hearing. She reiterated the baseless allegation that widespread fraud had led to Trump’s loss in the 2020 election, said she did not recall various incendiary statements and social media posts attributed to her, and denied ever supporting violence.
Green admitted that she was encouraging a rally in support of Trump, but said she was unaware of plans to storm the Capitol or violate the election count by force. Green said she feared for her safety during the riot and used social media posts to encourage people to be safe and calm.
The challenge of its admissibility is based on part of the 14th Amendment, which says that no one can serve in Congress “who, having previously taken the oath as a member of Congress … to support the Constitution of the United States ratified shortly after the Civil War, it aimed in part to prevent representatives who fought for the Confederacy from returning to Congress.
Green “called for, encouraged and helped facilitate violent resistance against our own government, our democracy and our constitution,” Fein said, concluding: “She is participating in an uprising.”
James Bopp, Green’s lawyer, claims that his client was involved in a protected political speech and that she was the victim of the attack on the Capitol, not a participant.
Bodro wrote that there was no evidence that Green was involved in the attack on the Capitol or that she communicated with or gave directives to people involved.
Whatever the exact parameters of the meaning of “engagement” as used in the 14th Amendment, and assuming for these purposes that the invasion was an uprising, the Challengers provided insufficient evidence to show that Green’s representative was ” engaged in this uprising after she was sworn in on January 3, 2021, “he wrote.
Green’s “public statements and heated rhetoric” may have contributed to the environment that led to the attack, Bodro writes, but her statements are protected by the right to freedom of speech from the First Amendment and the expression of similar political views, no matter how abnormal to be them ”before being sworn in as a member of Congress does not mean an uprising.
The challenge to Green’s right to run for re-election was filed by five voters living in her area, and the procedure for such a challenge is described in Georgian law. Bodro’s decision is not binding on Rafensperger, who must determine whether Green is eligible to run for re-election.
Once Rafensperger has made his decision, each party has 10 days to appeal to the Fulton County Supreme Court. Rafensperger faces a major challenge in the May 24 vote after refusing to succumb to pressure from Trump to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia. Rafensperger condemned the Capitol attack, writing in his book that he found it “very undesirable” that “people are now trying to minimize what happened on January 6.”
Georgia’s complaint was filed by Free Speech for the People, a national group for election and campaign finance reform, on behalf of the five voters. The group has presented similar challenges in Arizona and North Carolina.
Green has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of the law that voters use to try to keep it off the ballot. This claim is pending.
Add Comment