Constitutional Disqualification: The case for investigating federal and state legislators who participated in the January 6th Insurrection
What you need to know:
Two members of Congress-elect and five state legislators-elect may have engaged in insurrection and should be investigated to determine if they meet the constitutional qualifications for office before they are permitted to take their oath of office and join the legislature.
- The 14th Amendment’s Disqualification Clause bars those who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from ever serving again as a federal or state officer.
- Representative Paul Gosar and Representative-elect Derrick Van Orden as well as five members-elect of state legislatures should be investigated.
- Congress and state legislatures have a duty to uphold the Constitution, and that includes determining whether members-elect are eligible to be seated under the 14th Amendment.
The 2022 midterms saw the election of individuals to the U.S. Congress and to state assemblies who may be constitutionally disqualified from holding office under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment for engaging in the insurrection that culminated on January 6, 2021. In this report, CREW reviews the cases of two United States representatives-elect and five state legislators-elect who we believe there is sufficient reasonable suspicion in the public record for the legislature to begin disqualification proceedings today, starting with conducting a thorough investigation of the individuals in question, before they are permitted to take their oath of office and join the legislative body. If those investigations confirm that these individuals engaged in insurrection, they should be excluded from office.
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no individual who engages in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution—after having previously taken an oath as a federal or state officer to support it—shall hold any federal or state office (unless Congress, by a vote of two-thirds in each house, removes such disability). Commonly referred to as the Disqualification Clause, this provision, like all other provisions of the U.S. Constitution, is “the supreme Law of the Land;” all federal and state officials are bound by them. See U.S. Const. art VI, cl. 2. It contains a qualification for office no different than the Constitution’s qualifications regarding age, citizenship, or residency.
Federal and state legislatures are empowered to enforce constitutional qualifications for office for their members, including the Disqualification Clause. Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution provides that each house of Congress “shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members.” See United Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 550 (1969) (distinguishing between Congress’s power to expel a member, which requires a two-thirds majority, and the power to exclude a member who is constitutionally disqualified). All relevant state constitutions have a similar provision empowering state legislatures to judge the qualifications of their members.
The U.S. House of Representatives has previously used this authority to refuse to seat Member-elect Victor L. Berger in the 66th Congress. See Cannon’s Precedents, Ch. 157, § 56. After the Civil War, the House also debated whether to seat John Rice and Alfred Waddell, who faced allegations that they violated the Disqualification Clause. Hinds’ Precedents, Ch. 14. The U.S. Senate also invoked Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment when it refused to seat Zebulon Vance, who had previously served as governor of North Carolina during the Civil War.
“Federal and state legislatures are empowered to enforce constitutional qualifications for office for their members, including the Disqualification Clause.”
According to Deschler’s Precedents, a House member’s failure to meet constitutional qualifications for office are usually raised by another member-elect before the House rises en-masse to take the oath of office. Deschler’s Precedents, Ch 7 § 9. Following a challenge, the newly elected speaker has traditionally requested (or directed) that the challenged member-elect stand aside while the other members are sworn in. Following the swearing-in, the House may: (1) adopt a resolution allowing the member-elect to take the oath and declaring the member-elect qualified; or (2) refer the question of the member-elect’s qualifications to the Committee on House Administration. See Deschler’s Precedents, Ch 7 § 9.
A New Mexico court recently interpreted and applied Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment in a decision removing now-former Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin from office. The court determined that the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol and surrounding events constituted an insurrection and that Griffin’s participation in it disqualified him under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court explained that an insurrection need not “rise to the level of trying to overthrow the government.” Rather, “[t]he term ‘insurrection,’ as understood by knowledgeable nineteenth-century Americans and Section Three’s framers, referred to an (1) assemblage of persons, (2) acting to prevent the execution of one or more federal laws, (3) for a public purpose, (4) through the use of violence, force, or intimidation by numbers.” State ex rel. White v. Griffin, No. D-101-CV-2022-00473, 2022 WL 4295619, ¶ 17 (N.M. Dist. Ct. Sep. 06, 2022).
As for what qualifies as “engaging” in insurrection, the court found that “knowledgeable nineteenth-century Americans understood that a person ‘engaged in’ insurrection whenever they were ‘leagued’ with insurrectionists . . . either by acting in concert with others knowing that the group intended to achieve its purpose in part by violence, force, or intimidation by numbers, or by performing an ‘overt act’ knowing that act would ‘aid or support’ the insurrection.” Id. ¶ 34. “‘[A]n overt act is not measured by how much it contributes’ to the insurrection; in the context of a violent insurrection such as the January 6 attack, just ‘[o]ne more person closer to the Capitol’ or ‘one more voice’ encouraging violence would be ‘one more person’ engaged in the insurrection.” Id. ¶ 36.
The Griffin court made clear that a person can be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment even if, like Griffin, they did not personally engage in violence or enter the Capitol. “[N]on-violent overt acts or words in furtherance of the insurrection” are sufficient to demonstrate engagement. Griffin, 2022 WL 4295619, ¶ 35. Nor is conviction of a criminal offense a prerequisite to application of the Disqualification Clause. Id. at 25. The test for disqualification is instead whether the person “‘voluntarily aid[ed] the [insurrection], by personal service, or by contributions, other than charitable, of anything that [is] useful or necessary’ to the insurrectionists’ cause.” Id. ¶ 33.
To that end, the Griffin court identified several categories of conduct relating to January 6th which warrant disqualification, including incitement to violence, physical presence within the mob beyond police lines on the U.S. Capitol grounds, and mob mobilization, logistical, and organizational support prior to the insurrection. See id. ¶ 38 (finding that the “mob’s size was their ‘greatest weapon’” and that “pre-January 6 mob mobilization and incitement efforts … helped make the insurrection possible”). The court cited law enforcement testimony establishing that anyone trespassing on Capitol grounds on January 6th (whether violent or not) contributed to the insurrection because the congressional proceedings could not resume until all trespassers were cleared from the restricted area, and law enforcement were overwhelmed by the sheer size of the mob. See id. ¶ 45.
For each of the legislators-elect, we explain below when they took an oath to the U.S. Constitution, the overt actions they seemingly took that constitute “engaging in insurrection,” and the legal authority that can be used to give effect to each individual’s constitutional disqualification from holding office as a member of the United States Congress or as a state legislator. The factual allegations that we have included reflect the public record available to us at the time of publication; as our understanding of the facts evolves, we may modify this document or add or subtract legislators-elect from this list.
CREW believes that there is reasonable suspicion that each of the individuals named in this report is disqualified because they (1) previously swore an oath to the Constitution and (2) either (a) joined the mob that gathered at the United States Capitol or (b) helped orchestrate the rallies on January 6th and related extra-legal events to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. To be clear, we do not believe that disqualification under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is triggered solely by a member’s decision to support a baseless challenge to the electors in a state or participation in Supreme Court litigation aimed at overturning the will of the American people. Those actions are evidence of a common purpose to prevent the certification of the Electoral College results of the 2020 presidential election pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment and the Electoral Count Act, 3 U.S.C. § 15; however, they do not on their own constitute engaging in insurrection. Each individual listed below who participated in one of these efforts also engaged in other actions, including coordinating with President Trump, White House staff, campaign officials, and outside militant groups to use violence or intimidation to prevent the counting of electoral votes on January 6th and thus block, for the first time in American history, the peaceful transfer of presidential power. They are on this list because of those actions.
This report only addresses the constitutional qualifications for newly elected or re-elected legislators. It does not address sitting legislators who may be disqualified but were not up for re-election during the 2022 midterms. Moreover, this list does not encompass everyone who engaged in troubling behavior in the lead-up to and on January 6, 2021. Some individuals who engaged in reprehensible anti-democratic acts in connection with the January 6th attack had never previously sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution, and thus do not appear below because they are not subject to disqualification under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. Others engaged in reprehensible behavior, but did not, in our view, reach the legal threshold for engaging in insurrection. Their omission here is not meant to absolve them for their behavior. Rather, it is a reflection of the high legal standard that the courts have endorsed, and which CREW believes is appropriate, when disqualification is discussed.
Members of Congress Elect
Paul Gosar, Representative-Elect (Arizona’s 9th Congressional District)
Evidence that Rep. Gosar swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
Rep. Gosar was first elected to the House in 2010 and took an oath to the Constitution as a member of the House in 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021.
Evidence that Rep. Gosar may have engaged in insurrection.
Rep. Gosar intimidated officials responsible for processing the election results, embraced violent alt-right groups, and advanced extra-legal efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Rep. Gosar’s efforts to overturn election results began the day after the 2020 election. On Nov. 4, 2020, Rep. Gosar helped assemble a mob that marched to the Maricopa County recorder’s office in Phoenix, where the ballots were still being tallied. Later that month, it was revealed that Rep. Gosar had spoken at a meeting of the violent extremist group the “Oath Keepers” several years before. Asked whether the United States was at risk of civil war, Rep. Gosar reportedly said, “We’re in it, we just haven’t started shooting yet.” In 2014 Rep. Gosar also traveled to Nevada to support the armed standoff between law enforcement and militant supporters of the cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, including groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, who had refused to stop trespassing on federal lands. According to Rolling Stone, Rep. Gosar reportedly encouraged planners of the January 6th rallies by suggesting that then-President Trump would give them a “blanket pardon” for a criminal matter unrelated to January 6th—a claim that Rep. Gosar subsequently denied. Ali Alexander, the founder of a “Stop the Steal” organization who helped plan the rally at the Ellipse on January 6th, also reportedly testified that he had “a few phone conversations” with Rep. Gosar in advance of the attack. In a video that was posted on Periscope, Alexander claimed that he had worked with Rep. Gosar and other members of Congress to “put[] maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting,” to certify the 2020 election in the joint session of Congress on January 6th, although Rep. Gosar’s chief of staff denied that Rep. Gosar was involved in planning the January 6th Stop the Steal events.
Rep. Gosar also coordinated with senior White House officials. On December 21, 2020, Rep. Gosar participated in a White House meeting with President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, Rudy Giuliani, and Mark Meadows, and other members of Congress. Summarizing evidence gathered by the January 6th Select Committee, committee member Rep. Stephanie Murphy of Florida explained that the meeting was part of an effort to “disseminate [Trump’s] false claims and to encourage members of the public to fight the outcome on January 6.” Rep. Murphy also said that the members discussed false legal theories pushed by John Eastman, including the theory that the Vice President could unilaterally reject slates of electors in his role presiding over the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021.
Rep. Gosar spread lies about the election on social media and advocated for unlawful efforts to overturn the election. For instance, on December 22, Rep. Gosar tweeted that “we will not accept disenfranchisement” of Trump voters and that “sedition will be stopped.” From late December 2020 to January 5, 2021, Rep. Gosar promoted the rally on January 6th. He was listed on a since-deleted “Stop the Steal’ protest website that directed rallygoers to trespass on Capitol steps, where demonstrations are not allowed, and which urged: “We the People must take to the US Capitol lawn and steps and tell Congress #DoNotCertify on #JAN6!” Just after noon on January 6th, Rep. Gosar called on Biden to concede the 2020 election. After the attack began, Rep. Gosar posted pictures to his Parler account of insurrectionists climbing the walls of the United States Capitol along with the text, “Americans are upset.”
Rep. Gosar may have engaged in insurrection by helping to plan and execute an unlawful attempt to subvert the 2020 election. He supported efforts at the state and national level to intimidate officials responsible for counting or affirming the election results, coordinated directly with White House officials and seemingly January 6th rally planners, and had contact with extremist forces including the Oath Keepers—one of the paramilitary groups that stormed the United States Capitol. For these reasons, there is a strong case that Rep. Gosar engaged in insurrection within the meaning of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On December 7, 2022, Rep. Gosar posted, then deleted, on social media that he supported and agreed with former President Trump’s call to set aside laws, including those in the Constitution because of purported “MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION” in conjunction with the 2020 election. While this statement occurred long after the January 6th insurrection, it is probative of Rep. Gosar’s shared objective with Trump and his willingness to resort to extra-legal means to secure power.
Process for enforcing disqualification under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution provides that “Each House [of Congress] shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members.” A procedural challenge to the constitutional qualifications of a member may be voiced prior to the administration of the oath of office. A simple majority vote is sufficient to exclude a member from taking office on that basis.
Derrick Van Orden, Representative-Elect (Wisconsin 3rd Congressional District)
Evidence that Van Orden swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
According to his campaign website, Derrick Van Orden served in the military for 26 years and retired as a Navy SEAL Senior Chief (a senior noncommissioned officer). Van Orden would have sworn an oath to the Constitution in conjunction with his service.
Evidence that Van Orden may have engaged in insurrection.
A social media post from January 6th appears to show Van Orden in a restricted area of the United States Capitol grounds that he would have had to cross police lines to access. A friend of Van Orden’s also stated in a separate social media post on January 6th that the friend was going to meet Van Orden at the U.S. Capitol Building and that Van Orden had told them “Come on up. We got a great spot to watch.” Van Orden claims that he was at the U.S. Capitol to protest peacefully, did not enter the grounds, and left shortly after things got out of control; however, he apparently was there at least as late as 2:15 p.m.—more than an hour after police lines were first breached.
Evidence suggests that Van Orden may have engaged in insurrection by joining the mob that formed at the United States Capitol that sought to intimidate and obstruct members of Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. Although there is no evidence that Van Orden committed acts of violence, his apparent presence behind police lines contributed to law enforcement being overwhelmed and the congressional proceedings being delayed, and it advanced the insurrectionists’ shared goal of disrupting the lawful transfer of presidential power.
Van Orden also apparently used roughly $4,000 in campaign funds from his failed effort in 2020 to win election to the U.S. House of Representatives to pay for travel and accommodations expenses around January 6th for himself, his wife, and a staffer. It is possible that Van Orden’s funding of these expenses constituted aid to insurrectionists if his wife or staffer engaged in insurrection on January 6th.
Process for enforcing disqualification under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution provides that “Each House [of Congress] shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members.” A procedural challenge to the constitutional qualifications of a member may be voiced prior to the administration of the oath of office. A simple majority vote is sufficient to exclude a member from taking office on that basis.
State legislators
Anthony Kern, Arizona State Senator (District 27)
Evidence that Kern swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
Kern has served as a state representative since 2015. As a member of the Arizona House, Kern took an oath to support the Constitution as required by Article VI Section 26 of the Arizona Constitution.
Evidence that Kern may have engaged in Insurrection.
Kern served as a fake elector as part of a scheme that was integral to the insurrection’s success by providing Vice President Pence a purported legal basis to decline certification of the election on January 6th. Kern also seemingly joined the mob that formed at the United States Capitol—actions that were meant to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 presidential election. Although there is no evidence that Kern committed acts of violence, his apparent presence behind police lines contributed to the attempt to frustrate the lawful transfer of power under the United States Constitution through force or intimidation.
At a December 2020 “Stop the Steal” rally in Arizona, Kern invoked revolutionary rhetoric, saying “We’re here for such a time as this, right? So, this is a revolution, right? 1776 is past, right?” Kern took part in and spoke at a rally outside of the Capitol on January 5th alongside “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander, and Mike Lindell. During his speech, Kern invoked his role as a fake elector for Trump, saying “I put my name out there as a Republican Arizona state elector for Donald Trump, four more years. We will not allow the vote to be stolen from our duly elected president.”
On the morning of January 6th, Kern tweeted, “D-Day in DC to support Arizona’s and America’s duly elected President Donald Trump! #StoptheSteal.” Later that day, he seemingly joined the mob at the Capitol. Video and photo evidence appears to show him on the Capitol steps at the West Front of the building—a location well into the restricted area. Moreover, this evidence suggests he stayed beyond police lines after the violence began.
Kern was also involved in the Stop the Steal movement that led to the Capitol riot. He was one of a slate of fake electors who signed documents claiming Trump won the election in an effort to reverse the results. Kern joined an unsuccessful lawsuit that sought to implement the scheme.
Process for enforcing disqualification under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Article IV, Part 2, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution provides that each house shall “judge of the election and qualification of its own members . . . .” Arizona Senate Rules do not specify the process for excluding a disqualified member. The Arizona Senate could likely vote to exclude Kern at the beginning of the legislative sessions on January 9, 2023.
Photo by Gage Skidmore under a Creative Commons license.
Donnie Loftis, North Carolina House Representative (District 109)
Evidence that Loftis swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
Loftis swore an oath to defend the Constitution as a member of the United States Army and Army National Guard. He served from 1980-2010 and retired as an E-8/Master Sergeant.
Evidence that Loftis may have engaged in insurrection.
In an October 2021 statement, Loftis confirmed that he was at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. In a social media post that has since been deleted, Loftis explained that he was “gassed three times and was at the entrance when they breached the door.” When asked about his Facebook posts, Loftis acknowledged that he was “in front of the US Capitol,” but denied that he had any “involvement in the rioting.”
Loftis may have engaged in insurrection by being present behind police lines and joining efforts that sought to intimidate and obstruct members of Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. Loftis appears to have been physically proximate to individuals who used violence to gain access to the United States Capitol. His presence in the mob—even if he did not personally commit acts of violence as he claims—was an act of insurrection because it contributed to law enforcement being overwhelmed and the congressional proceedings being delayed, and it advanced the insurrectionists’ shared goal of disrupting the lawful transfer of presidential power.
Process for enforcing disqualification under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Article II, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution gives each legislative house the authority to judge “the qualifications and elections of its own members.” The North Carolina House of Representatives Rules do not specify the process for challenging the qualifications of members; however, an objection could likely be raised at the start of the new legislative session on January 11, 2023.
Matt Maddock, Michigan Representative (District 44)
Evidence that Maddock swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
Maddock has served in the state legislature since 2018 and took an oath to the Constitution as required by Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution of Michigan.
Evidence that Maddock may have engaged in insurrection.
Maddock was present in Washington D.C. on January 6th and may have been present near the U.S. Capitol that day. Maddock denies that he and his wife were at the U.S. Capitol protest; however, a video from January 6th appears to show an individual wearing the same jacket that Maddock was wearing at a rally the day before. The time depicted in the video is unclear, but it appears to show a large group marching towards the Capitol building on the afternoon of January 6th. Though the Maddocks claim they were in their hotel room when the Capitol was overrun, Maddock’s wife, Meshawn, also shared a video on Twitter of Trump supporters arriving at the Capitol on January 6th while commenting, “The most incredible crowd and sea of people I’ve ever walked with.” Maddock co-founded an organization called the Michigan Conservative Coalition and his wife (possibly with help from Maddock) organized at least nineteen buses to transport Trump supporters to Washington for the rally. Maddock was involved in the Stop the Steal movement in the days and weeks leading up to the attack on the U.S. Capitol as well. On January 5th, Maddock signed onto a letter to Vice President Pence asking him to delay the counting of electoral votes and spoke at a Stop the Steal event in D.C. On December 10th, Maddock signed onto a Texas lawsuit challenging the election results in Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. On December 14th, Maddock was part of a group that attempted to enter the Michigan Capitol in December 2020 to cast a fake slate of electoral votes.
If Maddock was present behind police lines at the U.S. Capitol during the attacks on January 6th, it would constitute engaging in insurrection because it contributed to law enforcement being overwhelmed and the congressional proceedings being delayed, and it advanced the insurrectionists’ shared goal of disrupting the lawful transfer of presidential power through force or intimidation. The transportation that Maddock may have helped provide to individuals attending the January 6th rally could also constitute aid to insurrectionists—particularly if those individuals also joined the mob that stormed the Capitol grounds, or if Maddock knew in advance that any of the individuals traveling were armed or planned to resort to violence. An inquiry into Maddock’s conduct would likely be needed to ascertain precisely where on the Capitol grounds Maddock was, how long he was there, and whether he witnessed violence.
Process for enforcing disqualification under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
According to Article IV, Section 16 of Constitution of Michigan of 1963, each body of the legislature is the sole judge of the qualifications of its members. Michigan House Rules provide that a member may be excluded from office under certain circumstances, though the rule does not specifically reference Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. A simple majority vote controls votes on the qualification of members. The state house could vote to exclude Maddock when it convenes its legislative session on January 11, 2023.
Mike Azinger, West Virginia State Senator (District 3)
Evidence that Azinger swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
Mike Azinger served as a member of the West Virginia House from 2014 to 2016 and has served in the West Virginia Senate since 2016. He previously swore an oath to the Constitution as required by Article VI of the West Virginia Constitution.
Evidence that Azinger may have engaged in insurrection.
Azinger may have engaged in insurrection by joining the mob that formed at the United States Capitol that sought to intimidate and obstruct members of Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. Azinger attended rallies on January 6th and may have been physically present behind police lines at the U.S. Capitol. A January 12, 2021 report in the Parkersburg News and Sentinel states that Azinger said he walked to the Capitol on January 6th and was at the “back edge” of the group there, though a separate local news report indicated that Azinger claimed that he didn’t partake in the breaching of the building. When asked about his involvement in January 6th, Azinger demonstrated little remorse, stating, “Our president called us to D.C.” and that the point of the mob’s presence at the Capitol was to “pressure the Republican congressmen to challenge the electoral votes.”
Although there is no evidence that Azinger committed acts of violence, his apparent presence behind police lines at the U.S. Capitol contributed to law enforcement being overwhelmed and the congressional proceedings being delayed, and it furthered the insurrectionists’ goal of disrupting the lawful transfer of presidential power. An inquiry into Azinger’s conduct would likely be needed to ascertain precisely where on the Capitol grounds Azinger was, how long he was there, and whether he witnessed violence.
Process for enforcing disqualification under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Article VI, Section 24 of the West Virginia Constitution provides that each house of the state legislature “shall determine the rules of its proceedings and be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members.” Article VI, Section 25 states that “[e]ach house may punish its own members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two thirds of the members elected thereto, expel a member, but not twice for the same offence [sic].” The West Virginia Senate Rules do not specify the process for objecting to the qualifications of members; however, the West Virginia Senate could likely consider whether to disqualify Azinger when it convenes for the new session on January 11, 2023.
David Eastman, Alaska State House Representative (District 10)
Evidence that Eastman swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
Eastman previously swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution, as required by Article XII Section 5 of the Alaska Constitution, as a result of his service as an Alaska State House representative since 2017. Eastman is also a former army captain, and likely swore an oath to the Constitution in conjunction with his service.
Evidence that Eastman may have engaged in insurrection.
In December 2020, Eastman signed on to a legal attempt to block states from certifying the 2020 election results and thus overturn the results of the election. Eastman then traveled to DC for January 6th and attended the Stop the Steal rally, and described the trip as an “immense privilege.” A social media photo showed him at Grant Memorial on January 6th, just across the lawn from the Capitol’s West Terrace, and just across the street from the area near the Capitol that was restricted on January 6th. While he is not known to have breached police lines, he was very close to them. Eastman’s support of extremist politics began long before January 6th. He is a “lifetime member” of the Oath Keepers militia group, whose leadership was recently convicted of seditious conspiracy for their role in January 6th. Eastman’s support for extremist ideology continued after the attack on the U.S. Capitol when he spread false claims that Antifa perpetrated the violence at the Capitol.
There is an ongoing case against Eastman to disqualify him from holding office based on Article XII, Section 4 of the Alaska Constitution (referred to as the disloyalty clause), which states that anyone who belongs to an organization which advocates the overthrow of government is disqualified from holding office. The judge ruled in September that the certification of the election results would be stayed pending resolution of the case.
By attempting to overturn the election results and traveling to DC to rally alongside fellow militia members, Eastman may have contributed to the mob’s attempt to disrupt the lawful transfer of power under the United States Constitution—actions which justify an investigation into his constitutional eligibility to hold elected office. However, many questions regarding Eastman’s conduct in support of the insurrection before, during and after the attack on the Capitol remain undiscovered. The pending litigation against Eastman will reveal more details about his actions and work with the Oath Keepers that would contribute to any disqualification action taken against him.
Process for enforcing disqualification under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Article II, Section 12 of the Alaska Constitution provides that the State House is the “judge of the election and qualifications of its members.” The State House could vote to exclude Eastman when it convenes for a new session on January 17, 2023; however, the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature do not specify the process for taking up the constitutional qualifications of members-elect.
Photo by Gage Skidmore under a Creative Commons license.
Header photo by Tyler Merbler under a Creative Commons license.