My favorite was Missouri. Someone submitted a bill that made it mandatory that candidates show their long form birth certificates. They withdrew the bill when it was pointed out that Missouri only issues short forms.
That's the first time I heard the results and reason why about the State of Missouri... interesting.
But, even if they amended it and had whatever was required and produced (for a birth certificate) for anything else -- legally -- why couldn't they have made that change for Missouri and required the same of all candidates there?
Now, the peculiar thing about that -- is that I've read a few posts elsewhere on Free Republic (over the months...) that have said that to get a passport that you have to have a long form birth certificate, while others said no you didn't. And if a state does not issue long form birth certificates -- does that mean that those people in that state (who were born there) cannot get U.S. passports?
Just wondering... :-)
I have an Illinois birth certificate that differs in no noticeable way from the Hawaiian short form, except that it says "Illinois" at the top and not "Hawaii." I used it to get a passport in California with no problem whatsoever.
Only in some cases, a couple of states, and some localities in others, is a long form necessary. It depends on what is on the short form, and it's accuracy. In one case the "place" shown was not the place of birth, which is absolutely required for a passport based on citizenship by birth in the US.