QAnon Shaman, Libertarian Congressman?
Ater storming the Capitol on January 6, the “QAnon Shaman” aims to return to our government center — this time as a congressman. Identifying himself as Jacob Angeli-Chansley, he filed a candidate statement of interest to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office as a Libertarian. Chansley (his legal last name) plans to run for Arizona’s 8th Congressional District, a seat currently held by Republican Debbie Lesko, who will not seek re-election and leaves office in January 2025.
QAnon is a far-right conspiracy theory movement centered on the posts of anonymous 4chan user “Q.” According to the Anti-Defamation League, QAnon believes in a secretive ‘deep state’ of “Satan-worshiping pedophiles who control the world and run a global sex-trafficking ring.” Trump was supposed to expose this during “the Storm,” a fantasized upheaval where deep state leaders would be put on trial and subsequently executed. Of course, when Trump lost the 2020 election, QAnon believed it was stolen from him by deep state leaders, leading QAnon to join the storming of the Capitol.
This is the world in which Chansley became a prominent figurehead. Chansley earned his “QAnon Shaman” nickname due to his “shamanic” attire (the infamous viking-esque fur headdress, horns, face paint, etc.) he wore to various protests initiated or interrupted by QAnon believers. His outlandish appearance and rambunctious behavior on January 6 turned him into an immediately noticeable figure in its aftermath.
Chansley was arrested on federal charges on January 9, 2021 and kept in jail until his November 2021 trial, when he was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison. During his trial, prosecutors argued Chansley showed signs of drug abuse and mental illness, claiming “Chansley has spoken openly about his belief that he is an alien, a higher being, and he is here on Earth to ascend to another reality,” according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. CNN reported that, before the sentencing, Chansley supposedly took complete ownership of his wrongdoings, telling Judge Royce Lamberth, “The hardest part about this is to know that I’m to blame. To have to look in the mirror and know, you really messed up.” Chansley also quoted The Shawshank Redemption in the hopes of bolstering his case.
Chansley only served 27 months of his sentence before being transferred to a halfway house in Phoenix. He has since denounced QAnon. Now, repositioned as a Libertarian, Chansley hopes to return to the Capitol chambers legally.
Ultimately, Chansley cannot be constitutionally prohibited from a congressional seat.
Frankly, Chansley has no chance of victory given his past and the fact that Libertarian candidates are doomed under the two-party system. Nevertheless, his candidacy poses compelling questions about American governance. Should Chansley be disqualified from running? From a morality standpoint, the issue is quite subjective. Under American altruism, we should allow Chansley to demonstrate self-improvement and stability to Arizona voters. Barring him from doing so arguably goes against American principles like “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and freedom of (peaceful) expression. Also, since January 6, he has not repeated any violent, radical acts. Granted, he has been imprisoned for most of this time, but maybe he should be given the benefit of the doubt, not because his past actions put him in our good graces, but because prohibiting him from running would be arguably un-American.
The Constitution also supports his candidacy. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment specifies that, “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress… under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress… to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
However, this only applies to politicians who previously took the oath of office. The “insurrection or rebellion” statement cannot apply to Chansley since he never held political office. Thus, Chansley is exempt from the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, since the Arizona congressional seat is federal office and the Constitution does not mention prohibition of felons from federal office, felons like Chansley are allowed to run for Congress. Interestingly, the Arizona state constitution also mentions nothing about felons running for office, so Chansley would also be allowed to run for local office. Ultimately, Chansley cannot be constitutionally prohibited from a congressional seat.
Thus, is it even worth considering a federal court case against Chansley’s candidacy? Again, the Constitution allows Chansley to run, so the courts would have no grounds. Would it be worth a borderline impossible-to-pass amendment (given political divisiveness and larger priorities in the House) just to make an example out of Chansley, especially given his microscopic chances of winning? While the concept of Chansley in Congress is repulsive or comical to some, these are important questions to consider. As farcical as it seems, he should be given the chance.
Eric Zimmerman ‘27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at e.j.zimmerman@wustl.edu.