A member of the German federal parliament (Bundestag) representing Alternative für Deutschlandy (AfD), has filed an emergency appeal with the Oldenburg Administrative Court to challenge his exclusion from an upcoming district administrator election in Friesland.
Acting on a recommendation from the Lower Saxony Interior Ministry, the local electoral committee disqualified Martin Sichert on July 21st from standing for this public office. The ministry questioned Sichert’s constitutional loyalty, pointing to his role as the district chairman of a state AfD branch that has been classified as a ‘proven right-wing extremist’ organization by the regional domestic intelligence service.
Sichert filed his request for an injunction on Wednesday, August 5, describing the argument behind his exclusion as “absolutely anti-democratic.” The lawmaker claimed that the decision, made primarily by political competitors from rival parties represented on the electoral committee, constitutes “political arbitrariness,” reminiscent of practices in autocratic states. In his legal petition, Sichert asserted that under the German Basic Law, political parties enjoy a constitutional privilege protecting their activities unless they are formally declared unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court. He maintained that any doubts regarding a candidate’s loyalty to the constitution must be based on individual statements and behaviors, rather than mere party affiliation.
Sichert’s disqualification follows the implementation of a stricter electoral code in Lower Saxony this spring, which requires local committees to consult regional supervisory bodies if they identify doubts regarding a candidate’s constitutional loyalty. Lower Saxony interior minister Daniela Behrens defended the intensified screening process, emphasizing the state’s responsibility to protect its defensive democracy and ensure that public officeholders respect the free democratic basic order. While other AfD politicians have faced similar bans across Germany, the courts have previously been reluctant to issue pre-election injunctions, often requiring candidates to exhaust the post-election dispute resolution process instead.
