An Arizona judge has rejected Democrats’ efforts to remove three GOP candidates from the coming election ballot over claims they are “insurrectionists” because of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the nation’s Capitol that left a protester dead, shot by a police officer.

Democrats have made no secret of their agenda to attack Republicans over the fact some members of the party supported the cause of protesters that day – suspicions about the accuracy of the 2024 presidential election.

Leftists in multiple states have launched court cases trying to banish GOP candidates from the ballots over their alleged support for what Democrats arbitrarily defined as an “insurrection,” even though most charges stemming from the riot have been trespassing and vandalism.

Now, according to a report in the Epoch Times, Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury has decided in Democrats’ attempt to remove two Republican congressman and a state representative from the November ballot that he doesn’t have the authority for such a ruling.

The Times’ report said the decision “likely foreshadows the outcome of similar efforts in other states.”

Coury ruled against demands by leftists who wanted U.S. Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs and state Rep. Mark Finchem removed. He said the 14th Amendment’s Disqualification Clause requires congressional action, not a lawsuit from private individuals.

“The express language of the United States Constitution controls this issue. The Disqualification Clause creates a condition where someone can be disqualified from serving in public office. However, the Constitution provides that legislation enacted by Congress is required to enforce the disqualification pursuant to the Disqualification Clause,” Coury said, according to the Times report.

“Aside from criminal statutes dealing with insurrection and rebellion which Congress has enacted (lawsuits which require the government, not private citizens, to initiate), Congress has not passed legislation that is presently in effect which enforces the Disqualification Clause against the candidates,” Coury said.

It is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that is called the “disqualification clause.” It was adopted following the Civil War to keep officials from the Confederacy from returning to Congress. It says those who have taken part in an insurrection against the U.S. cannot continue to be officers.

The judge said, “Given the current state of the law and in accordance with the United States Constitution, plaintiffs have no private right of action to assert claims under the Disqualification Clause.”

The result is similar to that reached in several other orchestrated complaints already.

In fact, the Arizona group that was integral in bringing the complaint also has had its fingers in similar cases brought against Reps. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., and Marjorie Taylor Green, R-Ga.

Other critics of the Democrat movement have said there would need to be an adjudication of someone being involved specifically as an “insurrectionist” before such claims would be legitimate.

Democrats have simply labeled the Jan. 6 riot an “insurrection” and then added the claims that anyone who was in support of the protesters’ concerns over the validity of the election is an “insurrectionist.”

A lawyer representing Gosar told The Epoch Times that the 14th Amendment itself states “Congress shall decide how this will be enforced” so a state is not authorized to do that.

WND reported recently when a judge said a similar claim against Greene, a Republican from Georgia, could proceed for now.

That claim was described by BizPacReview as “as despicable and dastardly as it gets.”

Greene said she may be persuaded to suggest Republicans respond in kind.

She made the comments in an appearance with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, where she said, “These people hate the people in my district so much, they look down on them because they voted for me and sent me to Washington to fight for the things that most Americans care about like secure borders, stopping abortion, protecting our Second Amendment, stopping the out of control spending in Washington and stop funding never ending foreign wars and the insanity that takes place in Washington.”

She continued, “Well, I went there and I have been fighting it, and now the progressives, the people who donate money to dark money groups, you know the 501(c)(3)s and the foundations, they’ve hired up some attorneys from New York who hate the people in my district and don’t believe they should have the right to elect who they want to send to Washington which is me.

“I have overwhelming support in my district and I’m so thankful for all of them,” she said. “Well, now they’ve filed a lawsuit because they’re trying to rip my name off of the ballot and steal my district’s ability to reelect me and send me back to Congress.”

She said, “You know, there’s something that I have learned and I think that this is really important, you know if you can challenge any representative’s candidacy or elected office holder, then I bet you we could round up some Republican voters who didn’t like Kamala Harris funding rioters, criminal rioters out of jail or Ilhan Omar or Cori Bush or Maxine Waters inciting riots.

“You know, I think there’s another way to play this game,” she said.

Courthouse News reported that it was U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg, who owes her appointment to Barack Obama, who said the case filed against Greene’s candidacy can continue – for now.

The report said Clark Cunningham, professor of law at Georgia State, described the case against Green as mostly “frivolous.”

“Though there’s more of a technical issue about whether the provision in the 14th Amendment, which was originally enacted in the context of the Civil War, whether Congress had sort of limited its effectiveness only to the Civil War, and Judge Totenberg does address that issue on the merits that that provision is still effective,” he said.

And Dave Oedel, a law professor at Mercer University, said in the report Totenberg barely kept the case alive.

WND reported earlier when the same claims were made by leftists in Wisconsin against that state’s GOP members.

That action targets Republican Sen. Ron Johnson and U.S. Reps. Tom Tiffany and Scott Fitzgerald.

However, WND already has reported on a federal judge’s rejection of virtually the same allegations in a case involving Cawthorn, a Republican from North Carolina.

There, the state elections officials claimed they had the power to determine his “eligibility” based on that Civil War-era provision, and Cawthorn sued.

A federal judge issued an injunction against the Board of Elections that prohibits the board of hearing challenges on the basis of insurrection.

According to officials with the Bopp Law Firm, who have been working with Cawthorn, a group organized in the state against Cawthorn filed a complaint with the state board demanding that Cawthorn be prevented from running for his congressional seat.

“They alleged that Rep. Cawthorn does not meet the federal constitutional requirements for a member of the U.S. House of Representatives because he engaged in ‘insurrection or rebellion’ against the United States on January 6th. Rep. Cawthorn vigorously denies that he ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion’ against the United States, and his suit sought to enjoin the NCSBE from employing unconstitutional and unlawful provisions of North Carolina election law to remove him from the ballot as a candidate.”

The judge held that due to the substantial likelihood that Cawthorn’s candidacy will be significantly impacted by the challenges before the upcoming primary, it was proper for the court to determine whether the board could proceed with the challenge.

And the ruling said the state law violated federal law to the extent challenges are based upon the “insurrection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because Congress removed that amendment’s application to any current members of Congress in The Amnesty Act of 1872, the law firm reported.

Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley pointed out that that position by North Carolina, which claimed the authority to determine Cawthorn guilty, “is wholly outside of the language and intent of this provision. Cawthorn is right to challenge any such action as unconstitutional.”

He explained if that state board claim were to be adopted, it would “invite partisan and abusive practices by such boards. It is also wrong on the purpose of this constitutional provision. Moreover, there is a vast difference between enforcing an objective standard on the age of a candidate and enforcing the subjective standard whether that candidate’s views make him an ‘insurrectionist.'”

A long list of questions have, in fact, been raised about the 2020 election.

What is known is that a number of issues remain under investigation. A coming documentary reveals hundreds of “mules” were hired to dump piles of mail-in ballots in drop boxes during election night’s overnight hours.

Also, independent analyses have concluded either of two ways likely “bought” the election for Biden. One was the $420 million Mark Zuckerberg gave to mostly leftist election officials with instructions to recruit voters from Democrat districts, and the other was the collusion by legacy and social media companies that decided to suppress accurate, and damaging, reports about the Biden family international business scandals just before the election.

Further, multiple state and local officials simply ignored their own state laws regarding the handling of mail-in ballots.

Meanwhile, Just the News has compiled a list of 20 situations that suggest fraud or irregularities in the 2020 election.

They include that Iranian nationals hacked into a state computer election system and stole 100,000 voter registrations and used them to try to intimidate Republicans, a former state Supreme Court justice concluded there was bribery in Wisconsin’s election count, there was illegal ballot harvesting in several states, vote signature requirements may have been violated involving 200,000 ballots in Arizona, the widely used ballot drop boxes were, in fact, illegal, foreign voters were found on voter rolls in Texas and Georgia, a number of mail-in ballot strategies were unconstitutional, voter roll laws were not followed and more.