Representative Madison Cawthorn will take to federal court his campaign against Democrats seeking to block him from running for re-election on the grounds that he allegedly participated in an insurrection against America on January 6, 2021.The Republican of North Carolina is mounting a constitutional challenge to his state’s law that places the burden on candidates for office — rather than their challengers — to demonstrate that they are qualified to run for office. In a complaint filed Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Cawthorn alleges that this burden “is unconstitutional under Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” He asks a federal judge to intervene and void the challenge to his candidacy. It is an effort to fight fire with fire, Mr. Cawthorn is appealing to the same amendment that has served as the basis of the effort to bar him from running for a second term. He argues that an act of Congress 150 years ago robbed the Disqualification Clause of its bite. While Section 3 of the amendment bans office holders who have “engaged” in an “insurrection” from running again, the iconic first section guarantees “due process of law” to all American citizens, a protection Mr. Cawthorn now claims.In particular, Mr. Cawthorn’s complaint highlights the North Carolina law’s stipulation that the burden of proof “shall be upon the candidate, who must show by a preponderance of the evidence of the record as a whole that he or she is qualified to be a candidate for the office.” Mr. Cawthorn objects to this requirement, arguing that the challenger should have to demonstrate disqualification. As written, it forces a candidate to prove a negative — namely, that he is not disqualified from running. The complaint also seeks to marshal the support of the First Amendment, saying that being barred from running for office violates his right to freedom of speech. His lawyer, James Bopp Jr., told the Sun that “there is no more fundamental exercise of the First Amendment than running for office.” Mr. Bopp went on to say that a constitutional challenge was in order because of a need to counter the “anti-democratic” nature of North Carolina’s candidacy requirements and procedures. Additionally, Mr. Cawthorn maintains that any ability to regulate who runs for Congress belongs to Congress itself. As the complaint puts it, “North Carolina cannot invade or frustrate the House of Representatives ability to make its independent, final judgment of the qualifications of a Member.”While those seeking to bar Mr. Cawthorn invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which provides for the exclusion from politics of officeholders who “engage” in an “insurrection” against America, Mr. Cawthorn’s filing points to the 1872 Amnesty Act as a counterweight. Passed four years after the iconic Amendment, this law removed “all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States … from all persons whomsoever,” excluding those who were implicated in the Confederacy. Mr. Cawthorn argues that this applies to him, as well. Free Speech For People is the organization leading the challenge to Mr. Cawthorn’s candidacy. Its legal director, Ronald Fein, told the Sun it is “unfortunate that Madison Cawthorn has decided to run to federal court instead of complying with the State Board of Elections.” While the North Carolina Republican primary is scheduled for May 17, earlier filing and absentee ballot deadlines, in addition to redistricting litigation currently before the North Carolina Supreme Court, mean that the challenge to Mr. Cawthorn will likely be heard only days before voting take place. By raising constitutional challenges, the lawmaker seeks to expedite that process and remain on the ballot. As the Sun has reported, Mr. Cawthorn’s fate, whose next chapter will be written in federal court, will be closely watched by other congressional candidates — and one former president — potentially facing similar challenges related to the events of January 6, 2021. Correction: The Amnesty Act is the name of the 1872 legislation referred to in this dispatch. The name was given incorrectly in the bulldog.
