RALEIGH, N.C. (CN) — A North Carolina senator announced plans Thursday to introduce a bill that would grant the Board of Elections the ability to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot.
State Senator Jay Chaudhuri made the announcement the same day the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments to determine if former President Trump is eligible to run again for president. Colorado had removed Trump from the Republican primary ballot, finding his denial of the 2020 election results led to and fueled the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, which he appealed. On X, Twitter, Chaudhuri said that the hearing is “one of the most important cases in our country’s modern history.”
The Democrat's plan was publicly challenged by Republican House Speaker Tim Moore.
“Democrats like Sen. Chaudhuri have made their intentions clear: to determine the election before voting even begins. It is crucial that we allow the voters, not bureaucrats, to decide who should be their party’s nominee,” Moore said on X. “Free and fair elections make our nation strong, and we will continue to look at legislative action to ensure the Democratic majority on the NC State Board of Elections does not have unchecked authority to remove a major political party’s nominee from the ballot.”
Chaudhuri said the Board of Elections should have the authority to remove a presidential candidate under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prevents those who “engaged in insurrection” from running for president. The same section is being argued at the Supreme Court.
Chaudhuri’s plan follows a complaint filed in December with the elections board by retired North Carolina attorney Brian Martin, who says the Constitution disqualifies Trump because of his involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection. The board held 4-1 that state law didn’t give them the authority to consider a challenge to a presidential candidate being on a primary ballot.
Current state law defines a candidate as someone who has “filed a notice of candidacy.” Presidential candidates included on primary ballots do not file and so don’t fall under the state’s definition of candidate. Instead, political parties provide a candidate list, and the board defers to the parties on who to include on the ballot. In December, Siobhan Millen, a Democrat on the board who was the sole vote against dismissing Martin’s challenge, told The Associated Press that the board was “hiding behind a technicality.”
“It’s critical that our State Board of Elections have the authority to remove a presidential candidate who violates his or her oath to protect, preserve, and defend the United States Constitution,” said Chaudhuri. “The history, text, and purpose of Section Three of the 14th Amendment make clear that the framers wanted to disqualify insurrectionists who present a real and serious threat to the republic.”
Chaudhuri has received support for the proposal from the Free Speech For People and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which the General Assembly to support it.
“Ensuring that only qualified candidates can appear on the ballot is crucial for our democracy,” said Debra Perlin, the policy director at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "Senator Chaudhuri’s proposal clarifies that North Carolina's State Board of Elections has jurisdiction to review challenges to the constitutional qualifications of candidates. We encourage the North Carolina legislature to pass this bill swiftly."
In a preliminary draft of the bill, Chaudhuri stipulated that the Board of Elections should have authority to review challenges to qualifications under the Constitution, specifically including the 14th and 22nd Amendments.
While Chaudhuri intends to file his bill next week, the Republican party holds a supermajority in both the North Carolina House and Senate and the bill may never even see the light of the statehouse floor.
But the Supreme Court may end up with the only and final say, since the legislature isn’t expected to reconvene until May.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
