A year ago this month (and followed up shortly thereafter), Arizona State Representative Judy Burges introduced legislation that essentially would enforce eligibility requirements for presidential candidates to get on that State’s ballot.
Then, yesterday, she and approximately 25 other co-sponsors reintroduced the bill. According to WND’s interview with her, the following would indicate the bill’s chances for passage:
The proposal from state Rep. Judy Burges, who carried a similar plan that fell short last year only because of political maneuvering, was introduced yesterday with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors.
It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.
In the House, there are 25 co-sponsors, with the need for only 31 votes for passage, and Burges told WND that there were several chamber members who confirmed they support the plan and will vote for it, but simply didn’t wish to be listed as co-sponsors.
The same WND story also mentions that similar initiatives are currently in play in Montana, Pennsylvania, my home State of Georgia, and Texas. Texas’ bill has an effective date of 9/1/2011, in time for the 2012 elections.
Those who think that “birthers” are nuts should, rationally-speaking, be welcoming these endeavors. They’re not lengthy bills, ought to survive or be defeated with an up-or-down vote on their own merits, and would add nothing to the constitutional requirements for the President (see my own two linked stories at the top of the posting wherein I explain how the Supreme Court has differentiated between adding to versus enforcing the Constitution and how it’s completely within the purview of the States to determine exactly how they wish to pursue managing elections within their own respective jurisdictions).
Besides — if the already-posted picture of a document of Mr. Obama’s alleged certification of live birth is the real deal, then his campaign should have no problems attaching a copy of this as a part of a paper trail establishing his eligibility.
Furthermore, there may be those who pose “what-if’s” regarding these initiatives, predominantly centered around the efficacy of such documents. Well, isn’t that the whole point? It would be very interesting to see someone attempt to sue a State such as Arizona over such a proposed law. It would certainly draw attention the issue, now, wouldn’t it? Besides — some of us would love to see this kind of issue get past standing, subject matter jurisdiction, and similar sorts of challenges and actually take the issue to Court.
Ah, but there’s the rub! SCOTUS has already ruled on how States handle elections, and if the issue is truly political, then even such challenges should be thrown out of Court, left for the States, the Congress, and/or the People to decide!
See how much of this is really a two-way street? Many opponents over the years on this site have often condescendingly recommended that individuals such as myself should either convince Congress or the States to do the vetting.
Sounds good to me! It might finally be happening! And the best part is, no matter who it is that’s running for President, all it takes is one State to produce such a requirement!
I can be reached at phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com.