SOME THOUGHTS ON THE MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE HEARING BEFORE A STATE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT JUDGE IN GEORGIA ON 22 APRIL 2022
Let us suppose that the judge rules that Marjorie Taylor Greene perjured herself; failed to give truthful testimony under oath by abusing the ‘I don’t recall’ response; and that she violated the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment.
In that event, does Raffensperger have the authority to allow her name to be on the primary ballot, as the judge in the case seemed to imply today? Is it his call?
Raffensperger is Georgia’s Secretary of State, so it would clearly be his decision with regard to any election law governing the state of Georgia, but could he ignore and in effect overrule a *federal* court in the matter by allowing Marjorie Taylor Greene on the Republican primary ballot for a federal office?
I don’t think so. Why? BECAUSE ultimately it is the federal courts that rule on what is permissible or not in a federal election.
Suppose, for example, that a district in Georgia ran a primary election in which the candidate that won failed either to be at least 25 years old, or to have been a U.S. citizen for at least seven years, or to live in the state they represent.
Would that *candicacy* be allowed on the ballot in Georgia by a federal court?
I don’t think so, because the candidate if elected could not hold the office for which he was running, as that would be a violation of U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 2.
So the candidacy and the election ballot itself would be a constitutional offense.
Federal jurisdiction here would appear to be plenary.
For example, a state cannot put a state initiative or referendum anywhere on the federal section of a ballot (thinking, perhaps, that this could increase the chances that voters in the state would vote on it).