The Supreme Court’s recent decisions regarding insurrection activity of local and state officials marks a pivotal moment in American politics reshaping the battleground for political eligibility.
A New Dawn in Legal Battles
The U.S. Supreme Court has cracked open a groundbreaking legal era, shining a spotlight on a Civil War-era clause. This provision empowers the disqualification of state and local officials who partake in insurrection, carving a new path in the interpretation of America’s constitutional law.
The Case of a Disqualified Commissioner
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a New Mexico official ousted for his involvement in the Capitol siege, setting a precedent on insurrection-related disqualifications. The decision hinged on the 14th Amendment’s Section 3, crafted in 1868 to prevent former Confederates from reclaiming governmental roles, demonstrating its relevance today.
Trump’s Legal Shield
A rapid Supreme Court decision established a protective barrier for federal officials from the 14th Amendment’s reach, pending legislative clarification. Despite a concerted effort to apply this to Donald Trump, this ruling emphasizes that, for now, the amendment’s constraints are tailored for state and local officials.
A Renewed Legal Landscape
The Supreme Court’s nuanced decisions signal a transformative legal terrain, igniting renewed efforts to hold state and local officials accountable for insurrectionist activities. Advocacy groups, having navigated the turbulent waters of high-profile disqualification attempts, are recalibrating their strategies with a focus on lower-level officials linked to the Capitol riot.
Accountability on the Horizon
Legal experts and advocacy groups, once centered on national figures, are redirecting their gaze towards the grassroots level, determined to uphold the oath of office by challenging insurrectionists in state and local positions. This recalibration marks a pivotal shift in the battle for constitutional integrity, underscoring the 14th Amendment’s enduring power against those undermining democratic foundations.
Targeting Insurrection
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is setting its sights on state lawmakers, leveraging a post-Civil War constitutional clause against those they deem have supported insurrection. Already, they’ve seen success, notably in New Mexico, where Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin, tied to ‘Cowboys for Trump,’ was ousted from his position due to his actions on January 6.
A Historic Disqualification
Griffin’s case marks a singular event in the aftermath of the Capitol riot, where Congress’s certification process was violently interrupted. His ban from holding office, grounded in the violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, signals a crucial turning point.
A Strategic Shift
Amid a pressing urge to challenge state or local officials with ties to January 6, there’s a newfound strategy to act before these individuals ascend to federal positions, where disqualification becomes challenging. This approach aims to secure decisive wins and impactful judgments at the state or local level, anticipating future federal immunity.
Political Motivations and Future Implications
Griffin perceives his disqualification as driven by political animosities, a sentiment echoed by his defense in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. This ruling opens a potential Pandora’s box for future political maneuvering, where Section 3 could serve as a tool for partisan gains, according to his attorney, Peter Ticktin.
Spreading Disinformation
Griffin became a vocal participant in a nationwide effort, using his platform to perpetuate falsehoods about the 2020 election results. His rallying cries encouraged participation in the January 6 event, framing it as a battle for the presidency.
Consequences Beyond Rhetoric
Following his involvement, Griffin faced legal repercussions, with a conviction for trespassing on Capitol grounds. Though he served a brief prison term, this federal conviction intersects minimally with his disqualification from office—a clear delineation of criminal and constitutional realms.
Legal Grounds for Disqualification
The case against Griffin illuminated the independence of Section 3 disqualifications from criminal convictions, as clarified by Judge Mathew. This distinction underscores the broader legal mechanisms available to enforce accountability for acts deemed insurrectionist.
