“A senatorial candidate was facing a recount and attempted to use the Article One, Section Five defense by saying, well, you can't, you know, subject you to this recount because only the Senate can choose its members,” Barton said. Hartke, a 1972 Supreme Court ruling deferring to the states. James Barton, an attorney representing the voters, disagreed, citing Roudebush v. The attorneys also argued that Arizona should have no say in ballot qualifications for federal candidates since the federal government imposes its standards under Article One, Section Five. After Cawthorn filed an injunction in the federal courts, a judge found that the Amnesty Act of 1872, which pardoned confederates, overruled the Constitution’s 14th Amendment prohibiting “insurrectionists” from Congress. Representative Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina. Wilenchik told the court that the 14th Amendment only aimed to disqualify Civil War-era insurrectionists.Ī similar defense was used to dismiss a disqualification attempt against U.S. Under the clause, Congress can remove a congressperson with a two-thirds vote. “Congress could authorize the manner of its enforcement, and as we sit here today, Congress has not authorized any matter of enforcement other than through a criminal proceeding, and a conviction, which we do not have here,” Wilenchik said. Congress, not the courts, to enact the disqualification. He pointed to the last sentence of the disqualification clause to illustrate the duty is of the U.S. 6.įinchem’s attorney Jack Wilenchik used the defenses of GOP lawmakers in similar cases. At least 20 members of the Oath Keepers have been arrested and face criminal charges for their activities on Jan. The Southern Poverty Law Center described the Oath Keepers as one of the largest far-right antigovernmental groups in the U.S. was “heading into a civil war,” to which he replied: “We’re in it, we just haven’t started shooting at each other yet.”

During the meeting, he was asked if the U.S. Gosar reportedly met with members of the Yavapai County chapter of the Oath Keepers. Kolodin was specifically referring to the voters questioning Gosar’s speech during a meeting with the far-right group known as the Oath Keepers.

Incitement requires a direct and imminent threat that is likely to actually lead to immediate violence.” Supreme Court has said political speech cannot be enjoined or punished,” Kolodin said. Ohio, which found speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment unless the speech is likely to incite “imminent lawless action.” Kolodin told Coury that Gosar’s speech was protected under the incitement test in the U.S. Gosar and Biggs hoped to sway then-Vice President Mike Pence into invalidating state-certified election results, according to the complaints against them. 6 to pressure Republicans during the electoral certification process. They claim Alexander played a crucial role in coordinating a frenzied demonstration by creating the “Wild Protest,” which sought to gather protesters to demonstrate near the Capitol steps.īoth Gosar and Finchem were scheduled speakers at the event.Īdditionally, Alexander has since said that he, Gosar and Biggs “schemed up” the events of Jan. The voters who filed the three lawsuits point to Finchem and Gosar’s mutual connection with Ali Alexander, a conservative influencer and right-wing conspiracy theorist, as evidence of their contributory roles in the insurrection. One associate of Finchem and Biggs is connected to an investigation, however. Department of Justice investigation is currently ongoing, but attorneys for the men told Coury that they are unaware of any 'congressional' investigation involving their clients. There are no criminal charges or cases pending against Gosar, Biggs or Finchem. “There at least needs to be a crime, and whether or not disqualification can apply in the absence of conviction for insurrection, it simply cannot apply in the absence of the crime itself,” Kolodin said. Representatives Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs and state Representative Mark Finchem, a Republican from Oro Valley, claim they violated section three of the 14th Amendment, which states no governmental official “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”Īttorneys for the lawmakers argued before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury on Wednesday.Īrguing before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury on Wednesday, Gosar's attorney Alexander Kolodin said criminal evidence must be present for the voters to initiate a disqualification based on an insurrection. Capitol told a Maricopa County judge Wednesday that voter-initiated complaints seeking to disqualify the candidates should be thrown out.

PHOENIX (CN) - Attorneys for three Arizona lawmakers tied to the Jan.

Ali alexander andy biggs