Greene candidacy challenge hearing delayed
A federal judge considering a bid to block the challenge asks for further arguments.
A hearing originally set for Wednesday, April 13, in a challenge to the candidacy of 14th District Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has been delayed.
The hearing has been rescheduled for April 22 at 9:30 a.m. at the Office of State Administrative Hearings in Atlanta before Administrative Law Judge Charles R. Beaudrot.
The long-shot challenge, filed with the Georgia secretary of state’s office by the nonprofit Free Speech for People, contends that Greene should be constitutionally disqualified from holding public office.
The accusation alleges she helped facilitate the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol which, the group contends, should constitutionally bar her from office.
In an earlier statement, Greene said she had no role in the Capitol riot and was among lawmakers evacuated from the House that day. In the past year she has used her position to advocate for those being held in jail for their alleged roles in the disturbance, which interrupted the counting of the state electoral votes and confirmation of the 2020 presidential election result.
Greene, a Republican who lives in Rome, Ga., represents the 14th Congressional District, which is comprised of 11 counties in Northwest Georgia, including Walker, Catoosa and Dade.
Greene has not been charged with any crime relating to the Jan. 6, 2021, incident and she filed a challenge in U.S. District Court to bar the complaint. A similar complaint, also filed by Free Speech for the People, involving North Carolina U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn was dismissed in federal court. That dismissal is currently under appeal.
On Friday, April 8, Northern District of Georgia Judge Amy Totenberg stated that she had “significant questions and concerns” about the Cawthorn ruling.
Given the additional time available for the court to rule prior to the commencement of the administrative hearing, and the importance of the issues this case to all parties, the court finds it would be helpful to the completion of its review and analysis of this case to obtain additional briefing.”
Essentially, Cawthorn’s argument states that a Civil War amnesty law passed in 1872 still applies and shields Cawthorn from being disqualified over his role in the insurrection.
Totenberg appeared to disagree in an order published Friday, April 8.
“I don’t think that the Amnesty Act likely was
Northern District of Georgia Judge Amy Totenberg
prospective,” Totenberg wrote, further stating that the 1872 law didn’t protect future insurrectionists.
The judge was expected to issue a ruling on whether the challenge to Greene’s candidacy would go forward. However, with the state challenge delayed, Totenberg wrote on Tuesday, April 12, that she’d like to have more information from both parties.
“Given the additional time available for the court to rule prior to the commencement of the administrative hearing, and the importance of the issues this case to all parties,” Totenberg wrote, “the court finds it would be helpful to the completion of its review and analysis of this case to obtain additional briefing.”
She set a deadline for those briefs to be filed by Thursday, April 14, at noon.