US & World

The problem about the suitability of Marjorie Taylor Green does not pass News

ATLANTA (AP) – Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Rafensperger accepted the judge’s findings on Friday and said that US Marjorie Taylor Green has the right to run for re-election, despite claims by a group of voters that she participated in the uprising.

Georgia Administrative Justice Judge Charles Bodro ruled that Green was eligible to run in the election, saying voters had not provided enough evidence to substantiate their claims. After Raffensperger made the judge’s decision, the group that filed the complaint on behalf of the voters promised to file an appeal.

Before making a decision, Bodro held a substantive hearing in April, which included arguments from lawyers for voters and Green, as well as extensive interrogation of Green herself. He also received additional documents from both sides.

Raffensperger challenged by candidate backed by former President Donald Trump at the Republican Party’s primaries on May 24 after he refused to succumb to pressure from Trump to undo Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia. Raffensperger could face a big turnaround from right-wing voters if he did not agree with Badro’s conclusions.

Raffensperger wrote in his final decision that typical problems with a candidate’s rights are related to questions of residence or whether they have paid taxes. Such claims are permitted in accordance with the procedure set forth in Georgian law.

“In this case, the Challengers argue that Green’s political statements and actions are removing her from office,” Rafensperger said in a statement. “This is a matter of law for the voters of the 14th constituency of Georgia.”

Green’s challenge was filed by the National Electoral Reform Group and Free Speech for People for five voters in her constituency who claim that a Republican congresswoman played a significant role in the January 6, 2021 riots that disrupted Congress. evidence of Biden’s presidential victory. They claimed to have put her in violation rarely refers to part of the 14th Amendment relevant to the uprising and makes it inadmissible for re-election.

Green applauded Badro’s decision and called the challenge to her right “an unprecedented attack on freedom of speech, on our election and on you, the voter.”

“But the battle is just beginning,” she said in a statement. “The left will never stop their war to take away our freedom.” She added: “This decision gives me hope that we will be able to win and save our country.”

Free Speech for the People, a nationwide group on election finance reform and the election campaign, challenged on behalf of voters. On Friday, the group sent a letter to Raffensperger urging him to reject the judge’s recommendation. They have 10 days to appeal his decision to the Fulton County Supreme Court.

A statement from the group said that Badro’s decision “betrays the main purpose of the provision on the disqualification of insurgents in the Fourteenth Amendment and gives a pass to political violence as a tool to disrupt and cancel free and fair elections.”

During the April 22 hearing, Ron Fain, a voter’s attorney, noted that in a televised interview the day before the attack on the U.S. Capitol, Green said the next day would be “our moment in 1776.” Voters’ lawyers said some supporters of then-President Trump used the reference to the American Revolution as a call for violence.

“In fact, it was the moment of 1861,” Fein said, alluding to the start of the Civil War.

Green is a conservative arrogant and ally of Trump, who became one of the largest fundraisers of the Republican Party in Congress, causing controversy and promoting baseless conspiracy theories. During a recent hearing, she repeated unsubstantiated allegation that widespread fraud led to Trump’s loss in the 2020 elections, said she did not remember the various inflammatory statements and messages on social networks that were attributed to her. She denied ever supporting violence.

Green admitted she encouraged a rally in support of Trump, but she said she was unaware of plans to storm the Capitol or disrupt the election count through violence. Green said she feared for her safety during the riot and used messages on social media to encourage people to stay safe and calm.

The challenge to her right to participate was based on Section 14 of the Amendment, which states that no one may serve in Congress, “whoever, having previously taken the oath as a member of Congress … to uphold the United States Constitution, must have participated in the uprising or uprisings against the same ”. Ratified shortly after the Civil War, it had to partially prevent the return to Congress of representatives who fought for the Confederacy.

Green “encouraged, encouraged, and promoted violent resistance to our own government, our democracy, and our Constitution,” Fein said, concluding, “She participated in the uprising.”

James Bopp, Green’s lawyer, claimed that his client was engaged in a protected political speech and was herself a victim of the attack on the Capitol, not a participant.

Cheerfully wrote that there was no evidence that Green was involved in the attack on the Capitol or that she spoke to people involved or gave them directives.

Regardless of the exact parameters of the value of “engage” 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 “participated” in the uprising after how she was sworn in on January 3, 2021, ”he wrote.

Green’s “public statements and passionate rhetoric” may have contributed to the environment that led to the attack, but they are protected by the First Amendment, Bodro writes.

“The expression of constitutional views protected by the Constitution, no matter how negative, before taking the oath of office as a representative does not constitute participation in an uprising under the 14th Amendment,” he said.

Free Speech for People has filed similar problems in Arizona and North Carolina.

Green has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of a law that voters are using to prevent her from voting. This suit is under consideration.

Back to top button