An Atlanta court is determining if Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene can run for re-election. // Photo courtesy of Gage Skidmore.

The Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol shook the foundations of the United States’ electoral system and its aftershocks are still felt a year after the fact. On Friday, April 22, an Atlanta court began deliberations concerning whether Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene will be permitted to run for re-election, following her role in the attack on the Capitol. 

Greene, a far-right Republican, was criticized in the past for her long history of transphobic, antisemitic and racist rhetoric, in addition to Islamophobia against fellow U.S. representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN). She was also condemned for willingly spreading disinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines, as well as her attendance at rallies organized by white supremacists. 

The hearing revolved around a Civil War-era Fourteenth Amendment provision ruling that United States’ officials who had sworn to uphold the Constitution and later “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” would be barred from holding office again in the future. 

Greene’s representative, in opening statements, argued that the hearing was a violation of her rights to free speech. The speech in question, the opposition asserted and her representative acknowledged, concerned rhetoric that suggested President Joseph Biden’s electoral victory was the result of voter fraud, as well as advocating for former president Donald Trump to not cede power to the incoming Biden administration. Her representative referred to these points as “normal political speech,” protected under the First Amendment, rather than that which would incite imminent lawless action, as was seen at the Capitol. 

A lawyer challenging Greene’s eligibility for re-election asked her about her understanding of Article 12 of the Constitution, which concerns vote counting. The prosecution questioned whether someone breaking the law with the intention of interfering with the counting of votes would be considered an enemy of the Constitution. Following a lack of answer from Greene, the lawyer asked if she agreed that she would be obliged by her oath as an elected official to find those people enemies of the Constitution and have them arrested or stopped. Greene deflected without providing a yes or no answer. 

The prosecution showcased Greene’s tweets as evidence to the court, where she had repeatedly spoke out to her followers and constituents that the election had “been stolen” and that the government should “reject the fraudulent votes.” The defense, in turn, objected on the basis of the Brandenburg test, a precedent established in a case involving Ku Klux Klan members’ right to free speech in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The defense stated that Greene’s sentiments did not incite immediate violence. 

During her time on the witness stand while being questioned by the prosecution, Greene gave vague answers and instead opted to double down on her claims of voter fraud, citing ongoing investigations into the 2020 election, while also arguing that she could not answer hypotheticals. She repeatedly said that she could not recall or remember innumerous instances of written and recorded statements issued by her team in the days leading up to the attack, including tweets from her account, quotes cited in news articles and possible meetings or relations with involved persons.

Greene emphasized that she has never endorsed violence but rather encouraged peaceful political demonstrations, even though she encouraged her supporters to “flood the Capitol” in the past. 

In response to a video of herself saying “We cannot allow it to transfer power ‘peacefully’ like Biden wants [because] he did not win the election! It’s being stolen and the evidence is there,” in which she encouraged people to come to the Capitol, Greene asserted that the video had been edited, though presented no evidence of this, before going on to reiterate her claims of voter fraud and her dedication to peaceful demonstrations. 

These claims arise despite Greene having been quoted in the past as appearing to advocate for violence against Democratic officials, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). By extension, Greene referred to the rioters as “patriots,” a reflection of how she had visited those who were arrested in the D.C. jail. 

The defense, in response, brought up a Jan. 6 Facebook post from Greene, where she urged those outside to “Be smart. Be safe. Stay peaceful. Obey the laws,” while asserting that it was “not the time for violence.” She went on to describe how scared she was, with no means of contacting her family in the secure location where she was being protected. 

In closing arguments, Greene’s defense asserted that this was another instance of public figures being “cancelled,” drawing comparisons between the insurrection and the initial 1776 independence movement. The defense then went on to refer to a precedent established in NAACP v. Claiborne (1982), where violent protestors where deemed separate from the peaceful whole, before asserting that precedent rules that “direct over act with intent to [incite insurrection is not that same as] mere disloyal sentiment or expressions, [which] not sufficient because they’re not acts.”

The prosecution in turn, referred back to their initial arguments: that a candidate for federal office took an oath to uphold the Constitution, that an insurrection occured, and the candidate, despite having taken that oath, engaged in and assisted the insurrection. While Greene was not part of the mob that marched on the Capitol, the prosecution argued that her role of sharin
g misinformation and advocating for the march on the Capitol nonetheless engaged in insurrectionist sentiments, citing her advocacy of violence against Speaker Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, as well as denying Biden’s desire for a peaceful transition of power.  

Per Georgia law, a ruling will be issued within a 30-day period following the end of the trial. However, the final decision will be determined by Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger, a Republican who became the subject of harassment and death threats for refusing to overturn the election per former president Trump’s claims of voter fraud in 2020.