Candidates Can Be Disqualified For Being ‘Insurrectionists,’ Court Rules In Madison Cawthorn Lawsuit

Topline

A federal appeals court has made it easier to try to disqualify political candidates for being “insurrectionists,” reversing a lower court ruling and ruling against Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) Tuesday in a case challenging his candidacy based on his alleged support for the January 6 attack on the Capitol building.

Key Facts

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled against Cawthorn in a lawsuit that he filed earlier this year to stop voters from asking the North Carolina State Board of Elections to prevent him from running for office.

The voters argued Cawthorn should be disqualified from the ballot because of actions that they allege showed support for the January 6 attack, which they argued goes against a provision in the 14th Amendment that bars members of Congress from holding office if they engaged in an “insurrection” after taking office.

A district court judge who was appointed by former President Donald Trump had ruled in Cawthorn’s favor, finding that a federal law passed in 1872 to ensure ex-Confederates could still hold office after the Civil War applied to future candidates, which meant Cawthorn couldn’t be disqualified and would stay on the ballot.

But on Tuesday, Appeals Court Judge Toby J. Heytens, appointed by President Joe Biden, ruled the 1872 Amnesty Act only applied to ex-Confederates and does not stop future candidates like Cawthorn from being disqualified, overturning the lower court’s decision.

Heytens said his ruling only concerned the 1872 law and doesn’t take any stance on whether Cawthorn is an “insurrectionist” who should be disqualified, whether voters actually can challenge politicians’ candidacy with state election boards or any of Cawthorn’s other legal arguments, such as that the challenge burdened his First Amendment rights.

Cawthorn’s office has not yet responded to requests for comment.

Crucial Quote

“This ruling cements the growing judicial consensus that the 1872 Amnesty Act does not shield the insurrectionists of January 6, 2021—including Donald Trump—from the consequences of their actions under the Fourteenth Amendment, and provides no basis to block state proceedings seeking to exclude insurrectionists from the ballot,” Free Speech for People, which brought the challenge to Cawthorn’s candidacy on the voters’ behalf, said in a statement.

What To Watch For

Cawthorn lost his primary election to state Sen. Chuck Edwards last week, so Tuesday’s ruling won’t actually have a practical impact on him. The challenge against his candidacy was part of a broader effort by Free Speech for People to kick “insurrectionists” who they argue supported the January 6 riot off the ballot, though, so the court’s ruling in this case could be applied to other candidates. The group has already filed complaints against other Republican candidates including Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano, Arizona Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs and Arizona secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem. The group is also appealing a ruling that found Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) can stay on the midterm ballot. That decision was based on state law and doesn’t directly concern the 1872 Amnesty Act, though, as a state judge and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) found there isn’t enough evidence to suggest Greene is an “insurrectionist” to begin with.

Key Background

North Carolina voters and Free Speech for People first challenged Cawthorn’s candidacy in January, and Cawthorn filed the lawsuit trying to stop their efforts in early February. Cawthorn was among the speakers at a rally that immediately preceded the January 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol building and told the crowd they “have some fight,” though he has denied any involvement with the subsequent attack on the Capitol. He has repeatedly made comments in support of the rioters since January 6, calling them “political hostages” and “political prisoners,” and he said in August “the second amendment was written so that we can fight against tyranny” and there would be “bloodshed” if elections continue to be “rigged.” The ruling against him comes after Cawthorn faced a series of controversies directly ahead of his primary election loss that caused even many in his own party to turn against him, including claiming that other politicians invited him to a “sexual get-together,” being pulled over for driving with a revoked license, carrying a gun at Charlotte International Airport and reports suggesting he could be implicated in an insider cryptocurrency trading scheme.

Further Reading

Rep. Madison Cawthorn Can Run For Reelection Despite January 6 Role, Judge Rules (Forbes)

Here’s Why Rep. Madison Cawthorn Might Be Kept Off The Ballot For Being An ‘Insurrectionist’ (Forbes)

Georgia Voters Appeal Decision Allowing Marjorie Taylor Greene To Stay On Ballot (Forbes)

Madison Cawthorn Loses GOP Primary Amid Controversies (Forbes)

A Time Line Of Madison Cawthorn’s Missteps—From Visiting Nazi Retreat To Wild Orgy Claims (Forbes)