It is up to the states to certify candidates since states run the elections according to their rules. They cannot however require a higher standard for national office than the US Constitution establishes. Regardless there is no constitutional control over a state’s authority to certify candidates as ITS responsibility.
As a result, each situation would become an individual case:
At the state level there would likely be judicial challenges to any refusal by a state’s election authority to certify a candidate to the ballot;
at the federal level there would be challenges to a state “overstepping its authority” by refusing to certify a (presumed) qualified candidate.
Either way it would not be good for a candidate with questionable qualifications.
It's obvious that nobody cares about what the actual document says.
I'm saying the states, at some point, don't need the courts' permission to insist the Constitution is upheld and followed by the Federal Government.
“Either way it would not be good for a candidate with questionable qualifications.”
Exactly. What candidate wants an issue like this hanging over his head during a campaign, with everyone asking him why he just doesn’t release his long form BC?
A simple question, with a simple answer.