A Public Service of Santa Fe Community College
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

County Commissioner Barred from Office with 14th Amendment

FILE - A demonstrator holds a sign outside of the U.S. Supreme Court, Feb. 8, 2024, in Washington. A pair of recent U.S. Supreme Court actions has opened the door to a new legal frontier in which local and state officials can be disqualified from office for life for engaging in "insurrection" or providing "aid and comfort" to enemies of the Constitution, based on a post-Civil War-era provision of the nation's foundational legal document and how the courts interpret it. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)
Mariam Zuhaib/AP
/
AP
FILE - A demonstrator holds a sign outside of the U.S. Supreme Court, Feb. 8, 2024, in Washington. A pair of recent U.S. Supreme Court actions has opened the door to a new legal frontier in which local and state officials can be disqualified from office for life for engaging in "insurrection" or providing "aid and comfort" to enemies of the Constitution, based on a post-Civil War-era provision of the nation's foundational legal document and how the courts interpret it. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)

By Morgan Lee and Nicholas Riccardi
Adapted for Radio by S. Baxter Clinton

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — Two recent U.S. Supreme Court actions have opened the door to a new legal frontier in which local and state officials can be disqualified from office for life for engaging in “insurrection" or providing “aid and comfort” to enemies of the Constitution, based on a post-Civil War era addition to the nation's foundational legal document and how the courts interpret it.

The Supreme Court on March 18 rejected an appeal from a former New Mexico county commissioner who was kicked out of office after he was convicted of trespassing during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The state judge who barred him from office did so on the grounds that his actions violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was added to the Constitution in 1868 to prevent Confederates from returning to government.

The move came on the heels of an expedited high-court ruling that Section 3 can't be used against federal officials or candidates until Congress writes a law outlining procedures to do so. That includes former President Donald Trump, the target of a national campaign to end his bid to return to the White House via the 14th Amendment.

But the court's ruling in the Trump case explicitly said the provision could still be used against state and local officials.

Taken together, the actions herald a new legal landscape as the liberal groups that pushed the issue of Trump's disqualification to the Supreme Court reboot efforts to target state and local officials linked to Jan. 6.

Stuart McPhail is an attorney with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning group whose lawsuit against Trump ended up at the Supreme Court.

McPhail said, “This is a bit of returning to the course we expected to be following, which was holding individuals accountable, who are low-level officials, who still broke their oath by coming to D.C., engaging in insurrection.”

Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech For People, which brought several other actions seeking to disqualify Trump and Republican members of Congress for their role in the Capitol attack, wouldn't comment on his group's plans. But, he said, one legal fact remains clear.

“Section 3 continues to be a viable way of protecting against insurrectionists in state and local government.”

CREW, which brought the lawsuit against Trump’s candidacy that landed at the Supreme Court, has identified state lawmakers it believes might be vulnerable to challenges under Section 3. It already has succeeded in one case, brought against the local official in New Mexico.

Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin, a founder of the promotional group Cowboys for Trump, is the only elected official thus far to be banned from office in connection with the Capitol attack, which disrupted Congress as it was trying to certify Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory over Trump.

The lawsuit against him cited his violation of Section 3, which prohibits anyone who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it or gave “aid and comfort” to its enemies, from holding future office.

McPhail says there is a new sense of urgency to take action under that clause against state or local officials linked to Jan. 6 — before they run for federal office and can’t be sidelined.

Shantar Baxter Clinton is the hourly News Reporter for KSFR. He’s earned an Associates of the Arts from Bard College at Simons Rock and a Bachelors in journalism with a minor in anthropology from the University of Maine.