Read the 14th amendment section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, 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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The question I have is how such participation in "insurrection" is to be determined. Is a merely a civil suit sufficient to establish participation in an insurrection? I think not. The most serious problem with this clause in the 14th amendment is that it was applied to those who participated in the Confederacy's war against the US government, and that problem is that the 14th amendment was not ratified till 1868 which was 3 years after the Civil War ended. The US Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.
I have argued previously on Free Republic that under the 14th amendment, John Kerry was not eligible to even be a dog catcher in Massachusetts, much less to be a US Senator, presidential candidate, or Secretary of State.
Make no mistake, calling January sixth an insurrection is entirely designed to keep Trump off the ballot as well as folks like MTG