It’s been more than a year since the Trump regime executed a multi-layered plot to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, culminating with the Jan. 6 insurrectionist assault on the U.S. Capitol that resulted in five deaths. The House Select Committee has pursued their investigation into the failed coup attempt mostly behind closed doors, but have thus far interviewed hundreds of witnesses and collected thousands of documents.
In a blow to Trump’s effort to keep his involvement in the Jan. 6 violence secret, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the disgraced former president’s request for an injunction to stop the release of hundreds of pages of White House records from the National Archive. New information has recently surfaced about Rudy Giuliani’s effort in December 2020 to put forward illegitimate electors from seven states that Trump lost, in an effort to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory.
Since Jan. 6, there’s been suspicion that several Republican members of Congress were complicit in planning and supporting the insurrection, but no proof of these allegations has yet come to light. Now a group of North Carolina voters has filed a legal challenge to their state’s Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn’s 2022 candidacy, claiming that he is constitutionally barred from public office under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with Ben Horton, a legal fellow with the group Free Speech For People, an adviser to those challenging Cawthorn’s right to run for re-election. Here he describes the process to remove Rep. Cawthorn’s name from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that says no person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion shall hold any public office.
BEN HORTON: So in June of 2020, we sent letters to every secretary of state in the country urging them to disqualify Trump if and when he runs for the presidency. If and when he runs, we will certainly launch the complaint against him.
He is definitely ineligible under this provision and we’re definitely investigating other members of Congress. It’s not just members of Congress — anyone who has taken an oath of office and then engaged in the insurrection. So we’re also looking at some state level officials.
SCOTT HARRIS: For our listeners, Ben, tell us who’s brought this complaint or challenge against Rep. Cawthorn, and what is the process like from here on in, in terms of whether or not he’ll appear on the ballot for North Carolinians to vote this November?
BEN HORTON: So right now there are, I believe, 10 and 12 North Carolina voters from the district that Rep. Cawthorn is scheduled to run in for 2022, who have raised this challenge. We’re representing along with some local North Carolina council.
And also along with that, we have two former North Carolina Supreme Court justices, one a former Republican, who are also helping us out with this challenge. And so the way that it works is you file a complaint with the State Board of Elections alleging that you have reasonable suspicion that the candidate doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications for office.
The state board then appoints a panel, and that sort of acts like a trial court where we can depose Cawthorn. We’ll definitely be requesting subpoenas, developing a factual record. From there, there’s sort of an appeal through the state.
Right now, the complaint has been stayed because of the pending redistricting litigation in North Carolina. And so, we’re sort of just waiting to see how that will play out.
SCOTT HARRIS: What is the evidence thus far that Rep. Cawthorn had engaged in aiding or abetting the insurrectionists that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6? And I would imagine that there’s a discovery procedure in the court system where you can pressure Rep. Cawthorn to answer essential questions that you might have regarding his complicity.
BEN HORTON: The evidence we have right now for engaging in insurrection, and I think it’s helpful to point out that engaging in insurrection isn’t limited to the people who actually stormed the Capitol any more than engaging in the Confederate rebellion was limited to the people who actually went out in the field of battle. So the evidence we have are that Madison Cawthorn spoke at the rally, Madison Cawthorn promoted the rally. Madison Cawthorn, according to reliable public reporting, was involved in planning the rally. We know that there were public plans to use the rally to stage an insurrection. So one reason we’re really excited about the North Carolina process is there’s actually a burden shifting provision, whereby once we have established reasonable suspicion that Cawthorn is not eligible, you know, we think we’ve gone above and beyond that. It’s actually Cawthorn’s burden to prove that he is eligible. And so at this panel proceeding, we can depose Cawthorn. We can request subpoenas.
We can request subpoenas, which we’re definitely going to do. And so we’re hopeful that that process will, you know, shed more light on what happened. And in the event that Cawthorn decides that he doesn’t want to participate in the process, we’re pretty confident that the statute means that that’s a default judgment against him.
He has the burden, and if he ignores it, he wouldn’t have meant it.
SCOTT HARRIS: In the end, then, who makes the decision whether or not Rep. Cawthorn name will appear on the ballot or not? Is it a group of election officials, a judge or how would this be determined in the final analysis? I’ll just add here that I’ve heard that Rep. Cawthorn or any other legislator who is challenged in this way could possibly appeal any decision right up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
BEN HORTON: He absolutely has a right of appeal — so the initial determination will be made by a panel of state election officials. He’ll have an appeal to the state election board from there. And he has a right of appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals from there. And from there, he has, you know, a discretionary right of appeal to the United States Supreme Court. So absolutely he could go all the way up.
For more information on Free Speech for People, visit freespeechforpeople.org.
