On February 7, the North Carolina State Board of Elections filed this brief in Cawthorn v Circosta, e.d., 5:22cv-50. This is the case filed by Congressman Madison Cawthorn, to stop the Board from adjudicating whether he meets the Constitutional qualifications to run for re-election. The challenge to him is based on the 14th Amendment, section 3, which bars anyone who took an oath to the constitution, and then engages in insurrection.
The most interesting part of the brief starts on page 25, and argues that states can judge the qualifications of congressional candidates, and can keep unqualified candidates off the ballot. Earlier parts of the brief argue procedural problems, such as arguing that Congressman Cawthorn hasn’t been injured unless the challenge succeeds, so the case is premature.
The sole judge of the qualifications of a candidate for the Congress is the body to which the candidate is elected – the House or the Senate. The States are barred by the Constitution from adding or subtracting from the qualifications established in the Constitution. The voters are the first judges of candidate qualifications and respective legislative bodies are the last judges. The states have no intervening role in qualifying candidates.
ONLY the existence the state ballot monopoly makes such a claim seem plausible. Such monopoly itself is unconstitutional, but not yet challenged. Hence, the clogging of the courts with litigation over how much state ballot censorship is too much or too little.
I’m assuming if this does indeed happen then Maxine Waters is also ineligible?