A legal advocacy group is taking an unusual approach in its attempt to prevent three Arizona officials linked to the January 6th riot from holding public office.

Free Speech for People has filed complaints in an Arizona court to bar Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., Rep. Andy Biggs R-Ariz., and Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, from office for their involvement in the Washington, D.C., insurrection.

The complaints cite a clause in the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies officials who participate in a rebellion from holding any official position.

John Bonifaz, president and co-founder of Free Speech for People, said it is a powerful tool for holding officials accountable when they break their oaths.

"Otherwise known as the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause, that provision makes clear that anyone who has taken an oath of office to defend our Constitution and then engages in insurrection is forever barred from public office," Bonifaz explained.

Gosar and Biggs were allegedly involved in planning the insurrection, and photos show Finchem at the Capitol on Jan. 6. All three plan to run either for reelection or another office in November. They have called the charges "frivolous," and asked the court to dismiss the suits.

Bonifaz pointed out Article Three of the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution in the post-Civil War era to keep former Confederate officeholders or military officers out of the U.S. government.

"History shows that it was designed specifically to deal with the elites, those who were at the high level of supporting an insurrection because they held positions of government power," Bonifaz noted. "They'd taken an oath of office, and they need to be held accountable."

Bonifaz added the lawsuits were filed to rid the government of officeholders who are seeking to overturn the country's democratic principles.

"This provision is a provision to defend our Republic," Bonifaz contended. "The question here is not solely whether or not Congressmen Gosar and Biggs and Mark Fincham aren't threats to the voters of Arizona, but rather threats to the entire Republic."

The group has filed similar lawsuits against others in Congress who had a role in the attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, including conservatives Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.

Recent polling from The New York Times and Siena College found President Biden trailing former President Donald Trump in five of the six most crucial battleground states, one of which is Arizona.

In the Grand Canyon state Trump leads Biden by five-percentage points.

Elaine Kamarck, director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institute, said the question is - if polls are showing Biden slipping, compounded with his unfavorable approval rating, does that mean voters won't vote for him and other Democrats in the upcoming election?

She said it isn't a simple answer.

"Maybe there is just no relationship between the president's popularity and down ballot voting," said Kamarck. "That voters vote on very different things and maybe because we have a 'president-centric' kind of culture, maybe we just get that wrong all the time."

While The New York Times/Siena College poll comprised just over 3,600 registered voters among all six states, Kamarck said other state-based polls - which struck fear in many Democrats - are composed only of about six hundred participants, which she says likely aren't grasping the entirety of voter's preferences and true attitudes.

Kamarck said looking at the special elections in 2021, the midterms in 2022, and the most recent set of elections this year, President Biden's unpopularity does not have much to do with democratic votes.

She contended that Democrats "over performed expectations," in all three years and increased their margins.

She argued that abortion is a huge motivator for democratic voters. Arizona is among one of several states looking at a possible proposed abortion rights measure on next year's ballot, which could boost Democrat's chances.

"Where the right to choose is front and center on the agenda, abortion is an incredibly powerful motivator," said Kamarck. "I think in my lifetime in politics which has been pretty long, it is probably the biggest push I've ever seen, really."

Arizona for Abortion Access is supported by a coalition of reproductive rights advocates who are currently working on getting the close to 400,000 signatures from Arizona voters by July of next year.

Currently, abortions are legal in Arizona up to 15 weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest. The law does have an exception to save the life of a pregnant mother.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

In just over a week on Nov. 29, state lawmakers will return to Atlanta to decide on Georgia's new congressional voting district maps. Grassroots organizations focused on voting access are stressing the importance of the process.

In October, a federal judge ruled the state's 2021 maps diluted the voting power of Black residents and violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

April Albright, national legal director for Black Voters Matter, emphasized the decision is crucial in promoting equity for often overlooked communities.

"Our communities don't get that infrastructure," Albright observed. "We see it in our education and we see it in our roads, and we see it in economic opportunities in the form of opportunity districts, where the state makes a decision about how much money they're going to provide as subsidy to invite industries to come and create businesses."

The judge's ruling called for lawmakers to create an extra congressional district in west-metro Atlanta with a majority-Black population. It also calls for two new majority-Black Senate districts in south-metro Atlanta, two majority-Black House districts in south-metro Atlanta, and two in and around Macon-Bibb.

Albright pointed out the significant population shifts in the South over the past decade, which highlight the need for people to have the option to vote for candidates who truly represent their beliefs. As voting districts are being updated and challenged throughout the South, she stressed the importance of safeguarding democracy.

"We've got to keep our eyes on the prize," Albright urged. "We've got to understand the power of the 'drip, drip,' organizing all year around issues that matter to us. And if we do that, then it doesn't matter what the courts will do. We know that we can still bring the changes that we want."

Census figures show Georgia's population has surged by more than 1 million since 2010, with significant increases in Black, Hispanic, and Asian residents, particularly in Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton and Gwinnett counties.

The ruling in Georgia comes after a historic decision in Alabama to create two majority and near-majority Black voting districts.


get more stories like this via email

CLARIFICATION: North Dakota Native Vote Board Chair Wes Davis isn't opposed to having all affected tribes in the same district. His comment regarding Spirit Lake Nation indicates that tribes altogether shouldn't be packed into a subdistrict advocates view as an obstacle in terms of representation. (3:30 p.m. CST, Nov. 26, 2023)

North Dakota officials said they will appeal a recent federal court ruling requiring the state to rework legislative voting district boundaries for certain tribal areas, as Native American advocates pressure the state to comply with the order.

Last week, a judge said the state violated a federal statute in its redistricting plans by diluting the Native American voting strength for communities along the Spirit Lake and Turtle Mountain Chippewa reservations. A key action was packing the populations into a separate subdistrict.

Wes Davis, board chairman of North Dakota Native Vote, said one of the areas in question, District 9, did not need any changes.

"We had fair representation across the board, especially with the amount of population that we have in Rolette County," Davis explained. "Adding Spirit Lake into it, it hurt the power of that vote."

His comment doesn't suggest opposition to sharing legislative boundaries with other tribes. Instead, advocates want a full singular district they say would reflect meaningful representation for all tribes involved, as opposed to a subdistrict.

Despite the judge agreeing with the sentiment, North Dakota's Secretary of State announced yesterday an appeal will be filed based on a separate federal court decision from this week. It said private plaintiffs cannot sue under a key section of the Voting Rights Act. Davis hopes tribal members in the affected areas reach out to state election leaders to share their views.

Even with the court victory ordering new political boundaries, Davis argued Native Americans have to consistently maintain dialogue about their need for fair representation and voting access.

"Our historical relationship with states is not the best relationship," Davis pointed out. "Having to voice that, along with the translation exhaustion of state governments versus tribal governments, is huge. So, you want to make sure that your voices are heard."

According to the Native American Rights Fund, the 2020 Census showed the number of Native voters in North Dakota grew to nearly 6% of the state's voting-age population. But the organization said the Legislature adopted a district map reducing the number of candidates Native voters could elect in northeastern North Dakota.

Last week's court ruling had given the state until late December to produce new maps. Now, the appeal announcement likely complicates the timeline.