Voters Challenge the Election Qualifications of Three Arizona Insurrectionists

by | Apr 7, 2022 | Quick Facts

Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs and Mark Finchem

Voters Challenge the Election Qualifications of Three Arizona Insurrectionists

by | Apr 7, 2022 | Quick Facts

Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs and Mark Finchem
Lawsuits argue that Representatives Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, as well as State Representative Mark Finchem, are not qualified for the ballot based on their involvement in and support of the January 6th insurrection.

A group of Arizona voters in coordination with Free Speech for People, has filed lawsuits challenging the qualifications of three candidates for future election or re-election.

The suits challenge the qualifications of Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs and State Representative Mark Finchem on the grounds that they are not qualified to hold office because of their participation in the January 6th insurrection.

Here is the full release from Free Speech for People:

PHOENIX, AZ (April 7, 2022) – A group of Arizona voters filed three separate lawsuits today in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County, challenging the eligibility of Congressmen Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs and State Representative Mark Finchem, who is running for Secretary of State, to appear on the 2022 ballot. The challenges allege that Gosar, Biggs, and Finchem are constitutionally disqualified from public office under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, on the grounds that they helped facilitate the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

The voters are represented by Free Speech For People, a nonpartisan, non-profit legal advocacy organization with constitutional law expertise, which is serving as co-lead counsel in the matter, alongside the Tempe-based election law firm Barton Mendez Soto and the New York-based firm Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel.

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, known as the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause, provides: “No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress. . . who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” The purpose of the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause, passed in the wake of the Civil War, is not to punish the oathbreaker but rather to protect the country. No criminal conviction or prior adjudication is required under the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause, although the defendants would be able to seek judicial review of an adverse decision.

In the state of Arizona, all candidates must file nomination papers with the Secretary of State that, among other things, declare they “will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks.” To enforce that requirement, “any elector” may challenge a candidate’s nomination “for any reason relating to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law.” That includes constitutional qualifications.

As set forth in the complaints, the publicly available evidence establishes that Gosar and Biggs helped facilitate the insurrection, before, during, and after January 6, 2021. Specifically, the evidence shows that they either helped to plan the attack on January 6, or alternatively helped to plan the pre-attack demonstration and/or march on the Capitol with knowledge that it was substantially likely to lead to the attack, and otherwise voluntarily aided the insurrection. Much of this evidence is in the public record and has been widely reported by numerous media outlets. According to news reports citing organizers of the pre-attack demonstration, Gosar went so far as to offer them a “blanket pardon” in connection with unrelated criminal investigations, encouraging what would no doubt be an illegal act of violence.

Gosar and Biggs were vocal supporters of the insurrection as it was happening and have since, along with Finchem, defended the behavior of its participants while falsely claiming it was carried out by “antifa” infiltrators. All three defendants have continued to perpetuate disinformation surrounding the attack on Capitol Hill and the false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from former President Trump by “voter fraud.”

The complaint against State Representative Mark Finchem alleges that he worked alongside Gosar, Biggs, and right-wing activist Ali Alexander ahead of the events of January 6th. Gosar and Finchem sought to introduce pro-Trump “alternate” electors, and Finchem later played an active role in the insurrection itself. He advanced with the crowd near the steps of the Capitol as it was being overrun, took a picture, and tweeted his support while the insurrection was ongoing: “What happens when the People feel they have been ignored, and congress refuses to acknowledge rampant fraud. #stopthesteal.” Finchem later attempted to downplay his involvement in the attack.

“This was an attack on the United States. The importance of counting the electoral votes in our constitutional system cannot be overstated,” the plaintiffs argue. “It formalizes a deeper, bedrock norm in our democracy: the peaceful transition of power…[Counting electoral votes and ensuring a peaceful transition of power] are essential constitutional functions of the United States government. An attempt to disrupt those procedures, particularly through violence, is an attack on our country itself.”

In January, voters in North Carolina, represented by Free Speech For People and North Carolina lawyers, filed a similar challenge against Representative Madison Cawthorn based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. On March 4, 2022, a federal district court judge in North Carolina, appointed by Donald Trump, issued an injunction blocking the North Carolina State Board of Elections from hearing the challenge on the grounds that an 1872 law which provided amnesty to ex-Confederates also applied to Cawthorn. The voters have filed an expedited appeal of that ruling with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Georgia voters, also represented by Free Speech For People, have followed suit, filing a complaint with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on March 24, challenging Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene’s candidacy for re-election. On April 1, Greene filed a federal lawsuit to try to stop the challenge from being heard before an administrative law judge in Georgia. A federal court hearing on Greene’s motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for tomorrow, April 8, at 2 pm ET before U.S. District Court Judge Amy Totenberg.  Pending the outcome of the federal hearing, a hearing before an administrative law judge has been set for April 13 at 9:30 am.

While state election authorities cannot impose additional qualifications upon federal candidates, they can (as confirmed by then-Judge, now-Justice Neil Gorsuch) exclude candidates from the ballot who do not meet the qualifications established by the Constitution itself.

Free Speech For People and Our Revolution are co-leading a national campaign to ensure that election officials across the country follow the mandate of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and bar elected officials who engaged in the insurrection, including former President Donald Trump, from appearing on any future ballot. More information about that campaign is available at

This actions follows earlier challenges against Madison Cawthorn and Margorie Taylor Greene.

Who is next?


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Related Articles

Sep 24 2022

DeSantis Sued Again for His Martha’s Vineyard Stunt

A Florida state senator has filed a lawsuit against Governor Ron DeSantis for his abuse of Florida state funds for his Martha’s Vineyard scheme.
woman raise signage
Sep 20 2022

A New Survey Shows the Top Issues Motivating American Voters

A 19th/Survey Monkey Survey finds the economy is a bigger deal for Republicans and preserving democracy is bigger for Democrats as a motivating factor in this year’s...
Queen Elizabeth II in an open carriage with Prince Philip for trooping the colour 2015 to mark the Queens official birthday, London, UK
Sep 09 2022

The Long Reign and Enduring Legacy of Queen Elizabeth II

Elizabeth II inherited a monarchy whose political power had been steadily ebbing away since the 18th century but whose role in the public life of the nation seemed, if...
Sep 06 2022

Facebook Accused of Fueling Bolsonaro Coup-Mongering in Brazil

Facebook and Meta are actively helping mobilize an online army in Brazil that’s peddling conspiracy theories about the integrity of the election and threatening a...
Sep 03 2022

Judge Orders Lindsey Graham to Testify in Georgia Grand Jury’s Election Probe

A U.S. District Court judge has ordered South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham to testify in Fulton County special grand jury investigation into attempts to overturn...
Aug 28 2022

A Legal Expert Answers Questions About the FBI’s Mar-A-Lago Search Warrant Affidavit

The information revealed in the affidavit indicates that our national security and the safety of intelligence agents were put at severe risk when national defense...
Former President Donald Trump, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Aug. 6, 2022, in Dallas. Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images
Aug 16 2022

Someone Doesn’t Have to Be a Spy to Violate the Espionage Act

When you hear “espionage,” you may think spies and international intrigue. More typically the Espionage Act applies to the unauthorized gathering, possessing or...
People vote in the primary election at the civic center in Silver Spring, Md., on July 19, 2022. Robb Hill for The Washington Post via Getty Images
Aug 08 2022

No, Local Election Officials Don’t Tilt Elections in Favor of Their Party’s Candidates

Have these officials, as some charge now, used their authority to interfere with America’s democratic process? Do local election officials abuse their power? The short...
Jul 29 2022

How Polio Snuck Back Into the U.S.

The first sign of trouble surfaced when a young man in Rockland County, New York sought medical treatment for weakness and paralysis in June. By the time tests...
Jul 29 2022

How a Grand Jury Works and Why Prosecutors Are Using Them to Investigate Insurrectionists

Aside from considering whether individuals may have committed a crime, a grand jury can also be used by a prosecutor as an investigative tool to compel witnesses to...
Subscribe for Updates!

Subscribe for Updates!

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This