Indeed, but the challenge is not based on a question of residency.
It’s based on alleged participation in a criminal act.
1 Like
They are trying to apply it to insurrection. Or seditious conspiracy.
There is a difference between proving where you live opposed to you didn’t participate in an insurrection.
1 Like
the first question on qualification is not a state issue (insurrection), its federal. the federal issue has to be settled first.
I agree. This is why people vote.
exactly, and the preponderance of evidence is he did not since he is not charged
Not in the text of the law, there isn’t.
§ 163-127.2. When and how a challenge to a candidate may be made.
(a) When. – A challenge to a candidate may be filed under this Article with the board of
elections receiving the notice of the candidacy or petition no later than 10 business days after the
close of the filing period for notice of candidacy or petition.
(b) How. – The challenge must be made in a verified affidavit by a challenger, based on
reasonable suspicion or belief of the facts stated. Grounds for filing a challenge are that the
candidate does not meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications for the office, including
residency.
(c) If Defect Discovered After Deadline, Protest Available. – If a challenger discovers one
or more grounds for challenging a candidate after the deadline in subsection (a) of this section, the
grounds may be the basis for a protest under G.S. 163-182.9. (2006-155, s. 1; 2017-6, s. 3;
2018-146, s. 3.1(a), (b).)
Actually there is, in the examples they gave when they wrote it. The intent is pretty clear.
It will be interesting to see what comes of it.
Maybe we’ll get lucky and it will get to SCOTUS.
Problematic.
Problematic.
Where’s the problem - legally?
Not exactly. It depends on what he is accused of doing. Others have been charged with seditious conspiracy.
So if Cauthorn is accused of say giving out building plans, they could roll that up into conspiracy.
“Not being charged” in one proceeding is not evidence in a different proceeding.
They just entered the capitol on electoral count day just to beat the rush for the next tourists visit.
What do you think the rational was behind the trespassing and violence on electoral count day.
Allan
They clearly defined the legislative intent of the law. It is not to address participation in an insurrection as defined by the 14th Amendment.
@Ben_Natuf has a point. If they are going to use the participation per the 14th, first they have to prove he participated per the 14th. Then he would have to show how it doesn’t disqualify him to the electoral board.
That is not what this thread is about. Stay on topic.
This is a great case.
I’d really like to hear Justice Barrett’s thoughts on it.
to walk between the velvet ropes while taking over the us govt and get pics of your feet on nancy pelosi’s desk. with no guns
1 Like
what is cawthorn accused of?
and why?
