Mr. Bopp stated in an interview that the case is “the most frivolous case I’ve ever seen,” but allowed what he called an “unethical” exploitation of North Carolina law by “competent” attorneys to pose a real threat. could represent for Mr Bopp. Cawthorn — and by extension, for others labeled “insurgents” by liberal advocates.
“This is the real threat to our democracy,” he said. “Just by filing the complaint, they could endanger a member of Congress running for reelection.”
“They have multiple goals,” he added. “Coincidentally, Madison Cawthorn is the point of the spear.”
That’s because North Carolina’s electoral statute provides challengers with a remarkably low threshold for questioning a candidate’s constitutional qualifications for office. Once someone makes a “reasonable suspicion or belief” that a candidate is not qualified, the burden shifts to the office seeker to prove otherwise.
Labeling Mr. Cawthorn as an “insurgent” could have broader implications. Other members of the Republican House, such as Georgia’s Marjorie Taylor Greene, Alabama’s Mo Brooks, Arizona’s Paul Gosar, and Colorado’s Lauren Boebert, face similar charges, but their state’s election laws pose higher hurdles to challenges for their candidates. qualifications. If one of their colleagues is disqualified for his role in encouraging the rioters, those hurdles can be cleared more easily.
The attorneys contesting Mr. Cawthorn’s eligibility use an amendment last invoked in 1920, when Representative Victor L. Berger, an Austrian-American socialist, was denied his seat as Representative from Wisconsin after he criticized American involvement in World War I.
If nothing else, the attorneys, including two former North Carolina Supreme Court justices, want to impeach Mr. Cawthorn as part of the discovery to question his actions before, during and after the Capitol attack.
