A Venice lawyer filed a federal lawsuit Saturday seeking to bar Donald Trump from voting in California’s 2024 primary, arguing that the former president is constitutionally disqualified for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection in U.S. Capitol.

The lawsuit, one of several expected to be filed in states across the country, argues that Trump is barred from running because the 14th Amendment states that no person can hold office who has previously taken an oath of office to support the Constitution and subsequently engaged in a rebellion or insurrection or provided assistance to those who did so.

The language in the Constitution speaks for itself, said Stephen Yagman, a civil rights attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of a California voter identified only as AW Clark.

There is only one issue that may need to be litigated, and that issue is whether Trump is guilty of insurrection or rebellion, Yagman said. I think the answer to that question for anyone who has sight is that he did.

The colorful, once prominent lawyer was disbarred and served 29 months in federal prison after being convicted in 2007 of tax evasion, bankruptcy fraud and money laundering. Yagman’s law license was later reinstated.

The lawsuit was filed against Secretary of State Shirley Weber, who oversees California elections, in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

The Trump campaign criticized it as a baseless lawsuit filed by the former president’s political enemies, comparing it to criminal charges filed against Trump.

“Joe Biden, the Democrats and the Never Trumpers are terrified because polls show President Trump winning the general election,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said. The people pursuing this absurd conspiracy theory and political attack on President Trump are pushing the boundaries. unrecognizable legislation, just like the political prosecutors in New York, Georgia and DC. There is no legal basis for this effort except in the minds of those pushing it.”

A spokesperson for Weber did not respond to a request for comment.

Similar lawsuits are expected to be filed in states across the country before the 2024 primaries begin. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington took legal action last week to ban Trump from voting in Colorado. A Florida judge appointed by President Obama dismissed a similar effort in Florida last month, arguing that prosecutors lacked standing but did not interfere with the constitutional issue.

Best known for its guarantees of due process and equal rights, the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution three years after the end of the Civil War. The ban on those who took an oath to support the Constitution but then became involved in insurrection or rebellion targeted former supporters of the Confederacy.

Two conservative legal scholars recently wrote that Trump’s conduct after losing the 2020 presidential election disqualifies him from office because of this amendment.

However, other experts argue that the case is not so clear-cut.

It’s not one

a fait accompli

. These are difficult cases, says Jessica Levinson, an election law professor at Loyola Law School.

Potential issues include the fact that the amendment does not specifically mention the presidency while other parts of the Constitution do, the question of who has the power to enforce this and, more broadly, what qualifies as sedition and insurrection, she said.

I think there are so many words that are undefined in modern usage and so many questions about who has the power to enforce this provision, Levinson said. Even though you can look at what the president did and say this looks like an insurrection and I don’t think he’s fit for office, that doesn’t mean you’re going to get a favorable ruling on the 14th Amendment.