Secretaries of state and other officials who determine ballot access make findings of fact relating to ballot eligibility all the time. Are you an American citizen? Do you live in the appropriate district? Do you meet age requirements? Are you barred by any criminal convictions? Have you filed the appropriate number of signatures to meet filing requirements?
Why are the requirements of the 14th Amendment any different? The officials who determine ballot access make the first determination, and if there is a dispute, it goes to the courts.
I’ve given this example before. What if I file the necessary documents to get on the presidential ballot in North Dakota, and the Sec State says, “Mr Piper, I think you’re ineligible to run for President. I’m not putting you on the ballot, because you don’t meet the requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.”
The SecState would be making findings of fact (Piper is not a natural born citizen and not 14 years a resident in the United States). The SecState would then use those facts to make a legal determination of ineligibility, and not put me on the ballot.
If the Sec State of North Dakota can make findings of fact and determinations of constitutional eligibility under Article II of the Constitution, why not under the 14th Amendment?
They would be preliminary rulings, and I could then go to court over it, but the point I’m trying to make is that administrative decision-makers make findings of fact and legal interpretations all the time. Their decisions will be subject to judicial review, but administrative decision-makers cannot ignore the Constitution or state laws in carrying out their duties.