# Now Arizona proposes letting states decide Presidential candidate eligibility **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063 "2010-04-23T01:48:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![campp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@campp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/campp)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/61 "2010-04-23T20:00:47Z")
Yes Cisco. I absolutely LOVE this state, have lived here 50 years. The legislature continues to spew out ridiculous bills while ignoring the fires burning at our feet. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/62 "2010-04-23T20:56:01Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > That seems to me to be a particularly stupid idea. For a start, a state governor is almost always identified with one of the major political parties, and hence would appear to be inherently biased against candidates from other parties. In the second case, it is possible that the Governor herself or himself might be a candidate in the presidential election, and hence have to rule on their own eligibility, or the eligibility of rival candidates. Keep in mind I was adding on to **Steve MB’s** response to **Little Nemo**. I/we took Lil’ N’s contention as saying that there could be little problem with the law since it would have to establish concrete, unassailable and non-manipulable criteria for establishing citizenship. Steve’s initial response was that by vesting the decision solely in the SoS–making the SoS the decider–then that would fulfill Nemo’s challenge. I was merely adding on to/tightening it by noting that it would be possible to not only prevent the question from being appealed to the judiciary, but also that the only avenue of appeal would be to a similarly political office. > [@](#): > > I don’t even see it is a “inherently political question” – just a simple question of constitutional interpretation, and applying the words of the constitution to particular candidates. By “political question” I’m referring to one that is outside the court’s general purview because the question of fact-finding (not the law itself, but the outcome of the SOS’s determination) is reserved to the SoS and the Governor. Note that this is different from challenging the constitutionality of the _law_—it’s whether or not the court can pass on the SoS’s determination if “fact” (i.e., whether or not citizenship has been established). That’s pretty much why I think this is an evil proposal. It would not be too hard to write it in such a way as to make ballot qualification a hotly contested political issue. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/63 "2010-04-23T22:38:07Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But legal systems don’t work like that. The Arizona legislature would establish a procedure on determining a person’s birthplace. Despite some paranoid suspicions, this procedure is not going to be _“the candidate must be white”_ or even _“the candidate must be a Republican”_. No, it will be something like _“The candidate must produce a notarized copy of the document recording his birth that was in use in the state of his birth at the time it occurred. This document must be submitted to the office of the Secretary of State no later than six months prior to the election. The Secretary of State will review said document and issue a statement affirming or denying its validity within thirty days of receipt of said document.”_ Etc etc etc. If Arizona can dictate what rules it has on what it takes to be a presidential candidate legal, then Hawaii can makes its own rules as to who it considers to be a Hawaii born citizen and resident. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/64 "2010-04-23T22:54:43Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Heck, even that would be a better use of his time. Once he starts jumping through hoops, it’ll never end. Anyone determined to believe chicanery will just claim each level of authority who supports the president is in on it. Posted, again. [http://www.cracked.com/blog/history-texbook-from-the-future-holy-shit/](http://www.cracked.com/blog/history-texbook-from-the-future-holy-shit/) > [@howye](#): > > There is no possible rebuttal. I would cite Taitz, Orly. These people are nuttier than a squirrel’s cheeks in November. A picture of Obama’s mother in front of the state capital building in Hawaii, legs spread and actually pushing little Barack out of her vagina would not satisfy these people. There is a complete disconnect from reality, a refusal to accept anything. They cannot be convinced because they are not actually looking to be convinced, they want to believe their imaginations because the reality of a black man being president is too much for them to handle. Dude, I’ve seen that picture. The shadows make it clear that the picture is a total fake. Just like the moon landing. -Joe -Joe ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/65 "2010-04-23T23:19:30Z")
The only reason to propose this stupid law is if Arizona intends to deny candidates that everyone else would accept. If they didn’t expect/intend to deny Obama’s citizenship, they wouldn’t be proposing the law. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/66 "2010-04-24T00:08:41Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > The only reason to propose this stupid law is if Arizona intends to deny candidates that everyone else would accept. If they didn’t expect/intend to deny Obama’s citizenship, they wouldn’t be proposing the law. It’s just like abortion, of course. All of the Hard-R GOPers in AZ can point to what they did to fix the problem with the Kenyan in the White House. Nothing will actually come from it - it’s just a bunch of noise to show that they’re real Americans, real patriots, not socialists. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/67 "2010-04-24T00:59:47Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > Posted, again. > > [http://www.cracked.com/blog/history-texbook-from-the-future-holy-shit/](http://www.cracked.com/blog/history-texbook-from-the-future-holy-shit/) The concept, though, goes back much further. I had in mind a passage from the novel _Catch-22_ in which the commanding officer gets it in his head that it’s a good idea to make the men under his command sign loyalty oaths, then weekly loyalty oaths, then daily, and eventually each officer has to sign an oath and sing the national anthem before getting breakfast. The practice is finally broken when blunt officer flatly refuses to play along, yelling instead “Give me eat!” The point being that once an empty gestures is tolerated in the name of trying to prove a negative, there’s no reason to keep from piling them on for the same reason. If the goal is make really, really _really_ sure that a person running for president is not ineligible, then there’s no limit to number of pointless tests one can demand, once everyone agree to the first one. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/68 "2010-04-24T01:09:41Z")
> [@](#): > > A law that allows the state SecState to decide, based on his own discretion, whether a given parcel of evidence passes muster or not. > > What do I win? You win the right to win the next sentence - the one where I said any proposal has to have a reasonable chance of surviving a constitutionality test. Your idea fails - no court is going to rule that a public official has the authority to make arbitrary decisions on who is eligible to run for President. > [@](#): > > Their newest martyr is the LTC that is being court martialed for refusing to deploy to Iraq, because he supposedly does not believe that Obama is an American. (My first question to him would be, in the 15 months that Obama has been President, have you obeyed any other orders from superiors? If so, what is so special about these orders that suddenly you think they are illegal? Of course, I am not a lawyer. The important thing is he gets convicted and punished.) This guy is throwing away almost 2 decades of service, because he is apparently buying into a completely irrational belief. Why do you think any of the others that share that belief will react any differently? As I said in another thread, this guy probably isn’t irrational. He wants to get out of his military obligation. He’s probably figuring if he makes himself a conservative poster child, the Obama administration will give him a quiet discharge rather than lock him up. Then he can do the right wing talkshow circuit and write a book that will make him a million dollars or so. > [@](#): > > The only reason to propose this stupid law is if Arizona intends to deny candidates that everyone else would accept. If they didn’t expect/intend to deny Obama’s citizenship, they wouldn’t be proposing the law. As I said above, the most likely motive for this proposal is to get Obama’s supporters up in arms over this and make it look like Obama has something to hide. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/69 "2010-04-24T01:10:01Z")
In view of the fact that this is not yet the law in the State of Arizona, I’d be interested in knowing what is the **current** process by which candidates’ names are selected for inclusion on the ballot. I did a little research, and discovered that the bill under discussion here is [HB 2441](http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2441p.htm), and that it amends Section 16-507, Arizona Revised Statutes. I also found out that the [current version](http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00507.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS) of Section 16-507, Arizona Revised Statutes states, _in toto_: > [@](#): > > 16-507. Presentation of presidential electors on ballot > > When presidential electors are to be voted for, the candidates therefor of each party shall be grouped and printed together, arranged in each group in alphabetical order, and the entire group of electors of each party shall be enclosed in a scroll or bracket to the right and opposite the center on which shall be printed in bold type the surname of the presidential candidate represented. To the right of and on a line with the surname shall be placed a square in which the voter may indicate his choice by a mark as defined in section 16-400, and one mark opposite a group of presidential electors shall be counted as a vote for each elector in such group. This doesn’t have word one to say about how names were selected for inclusion on the ballot in, say, 2008. Anyone have an idea where I might find information on the process, as it was exercised in 2008? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/70 "2010-04-24T01:21:31Z")
From kaylasdad’s link, here’s the relevant section of the proposal: > [@](#): > > The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party’s nomination of its candidates for president and vice‑president. Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States. > > The secretary of state shall review the affidavit and other documents submitted by the national political party committee and, if the secretary of state has reasonable cause to believe that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law, the secretary of state shall not place that candidate’s name on the ballot. What’s so sinister about that? It’s 2012. The Barack Obama and Mitt Romney campaigns both submit thier candidate’s name to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office. They both submit a copy of the documentation that they are natural born citizens and are over thirty five. Maybe some cable bills to prove residency. The Secretary of State has to show reasonable cause to dispute these documents. If you think “I don’t like this guy” is going to suffice, think again. If you think “I don’t like the way this state designed its birth certificates” is going to hold up as a reasonable cause, think again. Like I’ve been saying all along: Barack Obama is an American citizen. He will have no problem passing a citizenship test. Stop acting like this is something he needs to worry about. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/71 "2010-04-24T01:33:05Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > From kaylasdad’s link, here’s the relevant section of the proposal:What’s so sinister about that? It’s 2012. The only thing sinister is the implication that they’ve been careless and slipshod in how they’ve been formulating their ballots for ninety-six years. Somebody ought to demand an investigation of that! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/72 "2010-04-24T01:33:09Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The Secretary of State has to show reasonable cause to dispute these documents. If you think “I don’t like this guy” is going to suffice, think again. If you think “I don’t like the way this state designed its birth certificates” is going to hold up as a reasonable cause, think again. > > Like I’ve been saying all along: Barack Obama is an American citizen. He will have no problem passing a citizenship test. If Obama were an educated Ivy League type, certainly he would have no problem passing a literacy test to the satisfaction of the local county board of elections clerk? ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/73 "2010-04-24T01:33:37Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Stop acting like this is something he needs to worry about. It’s not about worrying, about humoring the crazy for…what was the purpose of this again? And how do you the people jerking off over this next to their rebel flag feel about the frivolous lawsuits that are raising our health care costs by like a bajillion percent\*? -Joe \*Figured arrived at randomly, dependent on the right wing arguments that all health care cost issues can be resolved through tort reform. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/74 "2010-04-24T01:38:12Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > That’s pretty much why I think this is an evil proposal. It would not be too hard to write it in such a way as to make ballot qualification a hotly contested political issue. “Please translate your birth certificate into Chinese. This will prove that you are familiar with it and that it is not a fake.” “This is one nigger that won’t be running for President in Arizona this year.” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/75 "2010-04-24T04:23:25Z")
Good luck on devising a literacy test that Palin can pass and Obama will fail. Which is still my point. Can anyone explain why Obama will be more burdened by this than his Republican opponent will be? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/76 "2010-04-24T05:10:59Z")
According to the text of the bill, the pass/fail decision appears to be left up to the discretion of the SoS. Where I see this backfiring, though, is when the Arizona Secretary of State accepts President Obama’s documentation as valid in 2012, and places him on the ballot. At which time, the Birthers move to prosecute the SoS for accepting fraudulent documentation in violation of the law. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/77 "2010-04-24T05:47:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You do understand that in this country, we vote in each state for a slate of electors, who in turn are pledged to vote for the Presidential candidiate of your choice… right? And that the constitution places the power to choose those electors squarely in the hands of each state legislature? > > And you realize that third party candidates frequently face the problem you mention: being on the ballot in some states but not in others. Technically that is correct, but I’ve never voted for an elector by name, and I’d be very surprised if anyone here has. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/78 "2010-04-24T05:50:55Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > That would not be enough for Senator John McCain. In his case, you’d need evidence that at least one of his parents was a U.S. citizen, and had resided in the United States for a sufficient amount of time before his birth. So evidence might include his mother’s birth certificate, or his father’s birth certificate together with his parents’ marriage certificate. Yes, but how do we know that his mother and father’s birth certificate isn’t faked? Hmm? Or that Admiral McCain was really the father? Hmm? How do we know that a Nigerian wasn’t really John McCain’s father? Or that the hospital didn’t swap babies accidentially, or intentionally with a communist mother? Hmm? How do we know that his parents were loyal US citizens? They might have been spies!! Hmmm? I now extend a handshake and a laurel to our new n…President. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/79 "2010-04-24T06:07:46Z")
> [@howye](#): > > These people are nuttier than a squirrel’s cheeks in November. Hey, watch the language! … Oh, good thing we’re in the Pit. > [@](#): > > A picture of Obama’s mother in front of the state capital building in Hawaii, legs spread and actually pushing little Barack out of her vagina would not satisfy these people. There is a complete disconnect from reality, a refusal to accept anything. They cannot be convinced because they are not actually looking to be convinced, they want to believe their imaginations because the reality of a black man being president is too much for them to handle. Sad but all too true. (I hope _I’m_ not accused of racism, but I thought it was nuts to pick a black candidate if the idea was uniting the country.) > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If fifty different secretaries of state, Democrats and Republican, all stated that Barack Hussein Obama has produced valid evidence that he is a natural-born American citizen, then it would have demolished the birther movement. Even without a legal mandate to do so, there’s nothing stopping 50 Secretaries from taking out an ad in _U.S.A. Today_ to advocate sane discourse. Or for 535 Congressmen to pass a unanimous resolution that Obama is the legal President and, regardless of political differences, they deplore the pollution of political discourse with rank gibberish. I can’t recall Democrats ever rallying around such poisonous lies, but if they did I’d be ashamed to be a Democrat. That the RW/GOP/Teapotters embrace the bile-drenched fumes from the mouths of their most stupid supporters leads rationalists to ask “Have you no shame?” There are RW people in this very forum! Do you agree with the tactic of embracing even the most obviously false vile nonsense? Your theory being, I guess, that the gullible and stupid are your natural voter base? From _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_: > [@](#): > > H’aint we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/80 "2010-04-24T06:50:28Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Even without a legal mandate to do so, there’s nothing stopping 50 Secretaries from taking out an ad in _U.S.A. Today_ to advocate sane discourse. Or for 535 Congressmen to pass a unanimous resolution that Obama is the legal President and, regardless of political differences, they deplore the pollution of political discourse with rank gibberish. And bless 'em if they tried, but it won’t make any difference. The birthers might lose _some_ of their less insane membership, but the dedicated hard-core types would remain and and the media, eager to publicize anything interesting, unusual or weird (on the basis that mundane, commonplace and banal make for lousy headlines) will continue to give them press. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063.md?page=5)