By Howard Fischer
Mail | X: @azcapmedia

PHOENIX — A federal judge is questioning arguments by the lawyer for Donald Trump that he can declare that John Castro is a “frivolous” candidate for president and therefore has no legal right to try to block the bid by the former president to try to get elected again.

During arguments Tuesday, Trump attorney Tim La Sota also disputed Castro’s contention that his client’s actions in and around Jan. 6, 2021, somehow provided “aid and comfort” to those who engaged in insurrection by invading the Capitol. That’s an argument Castro told U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Rayes would disqualify Trump from running under the 14th Amendment.

And La Sota told Rayes he cannot legally consider the conclusions of the congressional committee that investigated the riot which found there was enough evidence to charge Trump with assisting, aiding or comforting the riot.

But even brushing those issues aside, La Sota said Castro, who has announced his own bid to become the Republican presidential nominee, lacks legal standing to try to knock Trump off the ballot.
“He’s not a serious candidate,” La Sota told the judge.

He did not deny Castro, a legal specialist in tax law, has gotten his name on the ballot in several states. And he filed his formal nominating papers in Arizona after Tuesday’s court hearing.

But that, said La Sota, does not give Castro legal standing to argue Trump’s presence on the ballot somehow harms him.

“He’s basically running so he can file these lawsuits against Donald Trump,” La Sota said. “And then he turns around and uses these lawsuits to argue that he’s a serious candidate.”

In essence, La Sota said, Castro is arguing he can sue based on a contention that he is harmed even if Trump takes just one vote away from him.

“I mean, Mickey Mouse gets votes every election,” he said. “I think there has to be an inquiry as to ... whether Mr. Castro has a chance of prevailing.”

That line of argument, however, drew a skeptical response from Rayes.

“It seems like your argument would require the court to play the part of political prognosticator, looking at polls and guessing which candidates are serious and which aren’t,” the judge said. “Is that really a proper role for the judge?”

But Rayes also had serious questions for Castro about whether he even has the right to ask the judge to remove Trump.

It all revolves around the 14th Amendment, approved in the wake of the Civil War. It declares anyone born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen, including former slaves, guaranteeing them “equal protection under the laws.”

Relevant here is a section that denies elective office to anyone who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion “or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” Castro says Trump’s actions encouraged the events of Jan. 6.

Rayes, however, said he doesn’t see anything approved by Congress that gives Castro — or anyone else — the individual right to try to enforce that provision to keep someone off the ballot.
Castro said that’s irrelevant, saying the amendment is “self-executing,” meaning anyone can go to court to challenge someone’s legal qualifications.

Then there’s the question of whether a federal judge can do what Castro wants: order Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to remove Trump’s name from the ballot.

Castro said there is precedent for state officials to obey court orders.
For example, he said, someone who is not yet 35 can be removed from the presidential ballot because the U.S. Constitution sets that as the minimum age to run for president. The only difference here, said Castro is that the constitutional violation is not age but the 14th Amendment.

Then there’s the separate question of whether the 14th Amendment actually applies to a presidential primary.

And that’s the point at which any question of disqualification — a point La Sota is not conceding — might be relevant.

Even then, he noted, the 14th Amendment allows Congress, by a two-thirds vote, to lift the restriction.

But that still leaves the question that bothered Rayes: Does Castro have standing to sue.

He peppered Castro with questions about what evidence he has that having Trump on the ballot would harm his own candidacy — and whether he really is a viable candidate.

“It’s my position that I don’t need it,” Castro responded. But he said he has evidence of the money he has spent on billboards and campaign signs, including in the Phoenix area.

Rayes pressed for specifics.

“In Arizona, in particular, there’s a billboard right now that’s live in downtown Phoenix,’’ Castro said. He also said campaign staffers have been knocking on doors and putting up yard signs.

“Where do you put the yard signs?” the judge asked.

“In and around the Phoenix area,” Castro responded.

“Give me an address, a street name, please,” Rayes asked.

Castro had no immediate answer. But he said any yard sign was placed on someone’s lawn only if campaign aides got approval from a homeowner.

Rayes remained skeptical.

“How is the fact that you’re spending more money evidence that you’d gain more support if Mr. Trump wasn’t on the ballot?” he asked.
Castro, however, said there’s no requirement he do things like submit polling data to show how having Trump on the ballot would or would affect his chances of election.

The judge gave no date for when he will rule.

All this comes as Noble Predictive Insights on Tuesday released its own survey.

It found that Trump was the current preference of 53% of Republican voters, with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis a distant second at 16%. Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley were in high single digits, with everyone else below them.

Pollster Mike Noble did not include Castro in the survey. But he noted that only 2% of those questioned wanted someone else not listed, with another 2% saying they did not like any of the listed candidates.